Re: BUG #8059: sequence crash recovery is not working properly

On 12.04.2013 17:04, Andres Freund wrote:
> On the other hand, at
> least in the first example you haven't even committed the transaction so
> there's nothing that could flush the transaction unless we we would
> *always*  flush nextval() immediately if needs to get new values which
> doesn't seem reasonable.
Yes, i know that i haven't commited anything and also i agree that
flushing always is not reasonable.
I'm not sure that i understand all the details in sequence.c, but there
seems to be some sort of cache used for sequences, so instead of
flushing always maybe flush should only happen if next batch of values
are written to cache.

Regards,
Tarvi Pillessaar