Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys
Date: 2024-05-01 01:13:17
Message-ID: 20240501011317.GC594666@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:06:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> If you create an unlogged sequence on a primary, pg_sequence_last_value()
>> for that sequence on a standby will error like so:
>> postgres=# select pg_sequence_last_value('test'::regclass);
>> ERROR: could not open file "base/5/16388": No such file or directory
>
>> As pointed out a few years ago [0], this function is undocumented, so
>> there's no stated contract to uphold. I lean towards just returning NULL
>> because that's what we'll have to put in the relevant pg_sequences field
>> anyway, but I can see an argument for fixing the ERROR to align with what
>> you see when you try to access unlogged relations on a standby (i.e.,
>> "cannot access temporary or unlogged relations during recovery").
>
> Yeah, I agree with putting that logic into the function. Putting
> such conditions into the SQL of a system view is risky because it
> is really, really painful to adjust the SQL in a released version.
> You could back-patch a fix for this if done at the C level, but
> I doubt we'd go to the trouble if it's done in the view.

Good point. I'll work on a patch along these lines, then.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2024-05-01 02:05:31 Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-05-01 01:06:04 Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys