On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
>> char relpersist = seqrel->rd_rel->relpersistence;
>
>> if (relpersist == RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT ||
>> (relpersist == RELPERSISTENCE_UNLOGGED && !RecoveryInProgress()) ||
>> !RELATION_IS_OTHER_TEMP(seqrel))
>> {
>> ...
>> }
>
> Should be AND'ing not OR'ing the !TEMP condition, no? Also I liked
> your other formulation of the persistence check better.
Yes, that's a silly mistake on my part. I changed it to
if ((RelationIsPermanent(seqrel) || !RecoveryInProgress()) &&
!RELATION_IS_OTHER_TEMP(seqrel))
{
...
}
in the attached v2.
>> I personally think that would be fine to back-patch since pg_sequences
>> already filters it out anyway.
>
> +1 to include that, as it offers a defense if someone invokes this
> function directly. In HEAD we could then rip out the test in the
> view.
I apologize for belaboring this point, but I don't see how we would be
comfortable removing that check unless we are okay with other sessions'
temporary sequences appearing in the view, albeit with a NULL last_value.
This check lives in the WHERE clause today, so if we remove it, we'd no
longer exclude those sequences. Michael and you seem united on this, so I
have a sinking feeling that I'm missing something terribly obvious.
> BTW, I think you also need something like
>
> - int64 result;
> + int64 result = 0;
>
> Your compiler may not complain about result being possibly
> uninitialized, but IME others will.
Good call.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
