On 12/6/23 11:19, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 11:56 PM Tomas Vondra > <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >> On 12/3/23 18:52, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>> ... >>> >> >> Another idea is that maybe we could somehow inform ReorderBuffer whether >> the output plugin even is interested in sequences. That'd help with >> cases where we don't even want/need to replicate sequences, e.g. because >> the publication does not specify (publish=sequence). >> >> What happens now in that case is we call ReorderBufferQueueSequence(), >> it does the whole dance with starting/aborting the transaction, calls >> rb->sequence() which just does "meh" and doesn't do anything. Maybe we >> could just short-circuit this by asking the output plugin somehow. >> >> In an extreme case the plugin may not even specify the sequence >> callbacks, and we're still doing all of this. >> > > We could explore this but I guess it won't solve the problem we are > facing in cases where all sequences are published and plugin has > specified the sequence callbacks. I think it would add some overhead > of this check in positive cases where we decide to anyway do send the > changes.
Well, the idea is the check would be very simple (essentially just a boolean flag somewhere), so not really measurable. And if the plugin requests decoding sequences, I guess it's natural it may have a bit of overhead. It needs to do more things, after all. It needs to be acceptable, ofc. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
