On 12/20/21 15:31, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 18.12.21 22:48, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> What do you mean by "not caching unused sequence numbers"? Reducing
>> SEQ_LOG_VALS to 1, i.e. WAL-logging every sequence increment?
>>
>> That'd work, but I wonder how significant the impact will be. It'd bet
>> it hurts the patch adding logical decoding of sequences quite a bit.
>
> It might be worth testing. This behavior is ancient and has never
> really been scrutinized since it was added.
>
OK, I'll do some testing to measure the overhead, and I'll see how much
it affects the sequence decoding patch.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company