On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The "no commit record" part of the logic seems okay to me, but we need
> an independent test to decide whether to write/flush XLog. If we have
> reported a nextval() value to the client then it seems to me we'd better
> be certain that XLOG record is flu
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Tom Pfau wrote:
> I don't fully understand the xlog files or WAL records but...
>
> Why isn't the writing of the WAL record based on the CACHE value of the
> sequence? If a request to nextval() can't be satisfied by the cache,
> the sequence on disk should be updated result
