> Yes, nowhere near, and yes. Sequence objects require disk I/O to > update; the OID counter essentially lives in shared memory, and can > be bumped for the price of a spinlock access. Sequences also cache values (32 afair) - ie one log record is required for 32 nextval-s. Sequence' data file is updated at checkpoint time, so - not so much IO. I really think that using sequences for system tables IDs would be good. Vadim ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Tom Lane
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Lamar Owen
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Ashley Cambrell
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Tom Lane
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Philip Warner
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Tom Lane
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Mikheev, Vadim
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) J-P Guy
- Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) Bruce Momjian