From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: improve performance of pg_dump with many sequences |
Date: | 2024-07-17 18:48:00 |
Message-ID: | ZpgR4OMpbekeja_n@nathan |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:23:08PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:30:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yeah, I have bumped on the same issue. In the long term, I also think
>> that we'd better have pg_sequence_last_value() return a row with
>> is_called and the value scanned. As you say, it won't help except
>> when upgrading from versions of Postgres that are at least to v18,
>> assuming that this change gets in the tree, but that would be much
>> better in the long term and time flies fast.
>
> AFAICT pg_sequence_last_value() is basically an undocumented internal
> function only really intended for use by the pg_sequences system view, so
> changing the function like this for v18 might not be out of the question.
> Otherwise, I think we'd have to create a strikingly similar function with
> slightly different behavior, which would be a bizarre place to end up.
On second thought, I worry that this change might needlessly complicate the
pg_sequences system view. Maybe we should just add a
pg_sequence_get_tuple() function that returns everything in
FormData_pg_sequence_data for a given sequence OID...
--
nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-17 18:59:26 | Re: improve performance of pg_dump with many sequences |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-17 18:11:31 | Re: PG_TEST_EXTRA and meson |