public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Fujii Masao <[email protected]>
To: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 15:56:22 +0900
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>



On 2021/12/24 19:40, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Maybe, but what would such workload look like? Based on the tests I did, such workload probably can't generate any WAL. The amount of WAL added by the change is tiny, the regression is caused by having to flush WAL.
> 
> The only plausible workload I can think of is just calling nextval, and the cache pretty much fixes that.

Some users don't want to increase cache setting, do they? Because

- They may expect that setval() affects all subsequent nextval(). But if cache is set to greater than one, the value set by setval() doesn't affect other backends until they consumed all the cached sequence values.
- They may expect that the value returned from nextval() is basically increased monotonically. If cache is set to greater than one, subsequent nextval() can easily return smaller value than one returned by previous nextval().
- They may want to avoid "hole" of a sequence as much as possible, e.g., as far as the server is running normally. If cache is set to greater than one, such "hole" can happen even thought the server doesn't crash yet.


> FWIW I plan to explore the idea of looking at sequence page LSN, and flushing up to that position.

Sounds great, thanks!

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

view thread (78+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox