| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2021-12-20 16:40:14 |
| Message-ID: | a5303964-717e-9cb0-52cf-7a4b7d16adc8@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/20/21 15:31, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 18.12.21 22:48, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It might be worth testing. This behavior is ancient and has never
> really been scrutinized since it was added.
>
OK, I'll do some testing to measure the overhead, and I'll see how much
it affects the sequence decoding patch.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-12-20 16:52:48 | Re: Getting rid of regression test input/ and output/ files |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-20 16:25:55 | Re: sqlsmith: ERROR: XX000: bogus varno: 2 |