Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 22:23:08 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: improve performance of pg_dump with many sequences
Message-ID: <Zpc5HGb7yDfTNDy5@nathan>
References: <20240503025140.GA1227404@nathanxps13>
 <Zo2LdwUamOq6HzIU@nathan>
 <0a0f4d52-ab75-4d69-abe8-5713bf70eee6@app.fastmail.com>
 <Zo8Fl53vBVS1Cnmt@nathan>
 <d7f5942e-00ba-4d90-9bac-f0b2b7092dc4@app.fastmail.com>
 <ZpCQTZtXL85P5SaT@nathan>
 <Zpbnz4P13W7WICj-@nathan>
 <ZpcsrAcClLt7AwdI@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZpcsrAcClLt7AwdI@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zpc5HGb7yDfTNDy5%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:30:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, I have bumped on the same issue.  In the long term, I also think
> that we'd better have pg_sequence_last_value() return a row with
> is_called and the value scanned.  As you say, it won't help except
> when upgrading from versions of Postgres that are at least to v18,
> assuming that this change gets in the tree, but that would be much
> better in the long term and time flies fast.

AFAICT pg_sequence_last_value() is basically an undocumented internal
function only really intended for use by the pg_sequences system view, so
changing the function like this for v18 might not be out of the question.
Otherwise, I think we'd have to create a strikingly similar function with
slightly different behavior, which would be a bizarre place to end up.

-- 
nathan