Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million)

On 3/22/20 2:53 PM, pabloa98 wrote:
>
> So the question may actually be:
>
> How do we improve our locking code, so we don't have to spawn millions
> of sequences?
>
> What is the locking method you are using?
>
>
> I am not using locking with the million sequence solution. I do not want
> something that locks because the problems described below
>
> I prefer the solution generates a gap (skip a couple of numbers) and not
> using locks.
>
>
>
> > The lock part is because we solved a similar problem with a
> counter by
> > row locking the counter and increasing it in another part of the
> > database. The result is that all the queries using that table are
> queued
> > by pair (group, element) that is not that bad because we are not
> > inserting thousands of rows by second. Still is killing cluster
> > performance (but performance is still OK from the business point of
> > view). The problem using locks is that they are too sensitive to
> > developer errors and bugs. Sometimes connected clients aborts and
> the
> > connection is returned to the pool with the lock active until the
> > connection is closed or someone unlocks the row. I would prefer
> to have
> > something more resilient to developers/programming errors, if
> possible.
> >
>
> Now I read this paragraph, I realize I was not clear enough.
> I am saying we do not want to use locks because of all the problems
> described.

And what I was asking is what locking where you doing?

And it might be better to ask the list how to solve those problems, then
to create a whole new set of problems by using millions of sequences.

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com