Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication

On 12/18/21 22:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Here's a PoC demonstrating this idea. I'm not convinced it's the right
>> way to deal with this - it surely seems more like a duct tape fix than a
>> clean solution. But it does the trick.
>
> I was imagining something a whole lot simpler, like "don't try to
> cache unused sequence numbers when wal_level > minimal". We've
> accepted worse performance hits in that operating mode, and it'd
> fix a number of user complaints we've seen about weird sequence
> behavior on standbys.
>

What do you mean by "not caching unused sequence numbers"? Reducing
SEQ_LOG_VALS to 1, i.e. WAL-logging every sequence increment?

That'd work, but I wonder how significant the impact will be. It'd bet
it hurts the patch adding logical decoding of sequences quite a bit.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company