Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-07-07 09:57:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, see the comment that explains why the logic is like this now:
> I think we should 'simply' make sequences assign a toplevel xid - then
> we can get rid of that special case in RecordTransactionCommit(). And I
> think the performance benefit of not having to wait on XLogFlush() for
> readonly xacts due to hot prunes far outweighs the decrease due to the
> xid assignment/commit record. I don't think that nextval()s are called
> overly much without a later xid assigning statement.
Yeah, that could well be true. I'm not sure if there are any other cases
where we have non-xid-assigning operations that are considered part of
what has to be flushed before reporting commit; if there are not, I'd
be okay with changing nextval() this way.
>> I think a more useful line of thought would be to see if we can't complain
>> more loudly when we have no synchronous standby. Perhaps a "WARNING:
>> waiting forever for lack of a synchronous standby" could be emitted when
>> a transaction starts to wait.
> In the OP's case the session wasn't even started - so proper feedback
> isn't that easy...
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think a WARNING emitted here would be seen in
psql even though we're still in InitPostgres. If it isn't, we have a
problem there anyhow, IMO.
> We could special case that by forcing s_c=off until the session started properly.
Ugh.
regards, tom lane
