On 11/22/21, 5:10 AM, "Laurenz Albe" <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 15:43 +0800, Andy Fan wrote: >> The performance argument was expected before this writing. If we look at the >> nextval_interval more carefully, we can find it would not flush the xlog >> every >> time even the sequence's cachesize is 1. Currently It happens every 32 times >> on the nextval_internal at the worst case. > > Right, I didn't think of that. Still, I'm -1 on this performance regression.
I periodically hear rumblings about this behavior as well. At the very least, it certainly ought to be documented if it isn't yet. I wouldn't mind trying my hand at that. Perhaps we could also add a new configuration parameter if users really want to take the performance hit. Nathan
