| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unlogged sequences |
| Date: | 2022-03-31 16:28:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20220331162844.yp5uejytqtcpmlw2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-03-31 16:14:25 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> 1) Do we need to do something about pg_upgrade? I mean, we did not have
> unlogged sequences until now, so existing databases may have unlogged
> tables with logged sequences. If people run pg_upgrade, what should be
> the end result? Should it convert the sequences to unlogged ones, should
> it fail and force the user to fix this manually, or what?
> 2) Does it actually make sense to force owned sequences to have the same
> relpersistence as the table? I can imagine use cases where it's OK to
> discard and recalculate the data, but I'd still want to ensure unique
> IDs. Like some data loads, for example.
I agree it makes sense to have logged sequences with unlogged tables. We
should call out the behavioural change somewhere prominent in the release
notes.
I don't think we should make pg_upgrade change the loggedness of sequences.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-31 16:30:08 | Re: pgsql: Add 'basebackup_to_shell' contrib module. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-31 16:26:46 | Re: head fails to build on SLES 12 (wal_compression=zstd) |