On 2014-07-07 12:06:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2014-07-07 09:57:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, see the comment that explains why the logic is like this now:
> > I think we should 'simply' make sequences assign a toplevel xid - then
> > we can get rid of that special case in RecordTransactionCommit(). And I
> > think the performance benefit of not having to wait on XLogFlush() for
> > readonly xacts due to hot prunes far outweighs the decrease due to the
> > xid assignment/commit record.  I don't think that nextval()s are called
> > overly much without a later xid assigning statement.
> Yeah, that could well be true.  I'm not sure if there are any other cases
> where we have non-xid-assigning operations that are considered part of
> what has to be flushed before reporting commit; if there are not, I'd
> be okay with changing nextval() this way.

I'm not aware of any adhoc, but I think to actually change it someone
would have to iterate over all wal record types to make sure.

> >> I think a more useful line of thought would be to see if we can't complain
> >> more loudly when we have no synchronous standby.  Perhaps a "WARNING:
> >> waiting forever for lack of a synchronous standby" could be emitted when
> >> a transaction starts to wait.
> > In the OP's case the session wasn't even started - so proper feedback
> > isn't that easy...
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think a WARNING emitted here would be seen in
> psql even though we're still in InitPostgres.

Yes, it is visible.


Andres Freund

 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to