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
