On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 5:17 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can we find some cheap > way to detect if sequencesync worker is present or not? Can you think > some other way to not incur the cost of traversing the worker array > and also detect sequence worker exit without much delay? >
Added this. > Also, shouldn't we need to invoke AcceptInvalidationMessages() as we > are doing in apply worker when not in a remote transaction? I think it > will be required to get local_sequence definition changes , if any. Changed. Thanks Hou-san for helping me with these changes. I also did some performance testing on HEAD to see how long REFRESH SEQUENCES takes for a large number of sequences. I ran these on a 2× Intel Xeon E5-2699 v4 (22 cores each, 44 cores total / 88 threads) 512 GB RAM. I didn't see much value in differentiating between cases where half the sequences were different or all the sequences were different as REFRESH SEQUENCES updates all sequences after changing the state of all of them to INIT, it doesn't matter if they drifted or not. On HEAD: time to sync 10000 sequences: 1.080s (1080ms) time to sync 100000 sequences: 12.069s (12069ms) time to sync 1000000 sequences: 139.414s (139414ms) testing script attached (pass in the number of sequences as a run time parameter). regards, Ajin Cherian Fujitsu Australia
v7-0001-Support-automatic-sequence-replication.patch
Description: Binary data
<<attachment: test_seq_sync_performance.zip>>
