Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Cc: masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication
Date: 2021-12-27 20:24:43
Message-ID: 186288a9-f4c6-ca57-0fd4-dae743059892@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 24.12.21 09:04, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Still, as Fujii-san concerns, I'm afraid that some people may suffer
> the degradation the patch causes. I wonder it is acceptable to get
> back the previous behavior by exposing SEQ_LOG_VALS itself or a
> boolean to do that, as a 'not-recommended-to-use' variable.

There is also the possibility of unlogged sequences if you want to avoid
the WAL logging and get higher performance.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-12-27 20:48:43 Re: Emit a warning if the extension's GUC is set incorrectly
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-12-27 18:31:46 Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication