Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication
Date: 2021-12-21 01:01:59
Message-ID: 2683973.1640048519@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> OK, I did a quick test with two very simple benchmarks - simple select
> from a sequence, and 'pgbench -N' on scale 1. Benchmark was on current
> master, patched means SEQ_LOG_VALS was set to 1.

But ... pgbench -N doesn't use sequences at all, does it?

Probably inserts into a table with a serial column would constitute a
plausible real-world case.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2021-12-21 01:08:34 Re: Emit a warning if the extension's GUC is set incorrectly
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-12-21 00:56:26 Re: PublicationActions - use bit flags.