Re: log shipping and nextval sequences - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: log shipping and nextval sequences
Date
Msg-id 27779.1249500343@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to log shipping and nextval sequences  (Leonardo Cezar <lhcezar@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: log shipping and nextval sequences  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Leonardo Cezar <lhcezar@gmail.com> writes:
> In warm standby system when we have a filled log segment forwarded to
> archiving, there is an inconsistency on standby next value sequences
> obtained by a call to nextval() function. e.g.:

> * Primary server
> - Create sequence seq_a;
> - Select nextval ( 'seq_a'); # value 1;
> - Log shipping;

> * Standby server
> - Failover;
> - Select nextval ( 'seq_a') on standby # value = currval + 31 (written ahead)

> AFAIK this occurs because some fetches (log_cnt) are made in advance
> and they are recorded in the log and shipping together.
> Does it necessary for some kind of overhead or something like that?

> Does it make sense to create a GUC  to control the log_cnt amount
> rather than SEQ_LOG_VALS approach?

No.  If your application expects the series not to have gaps, your
application is broken independently of warm standby.  The same sort
of advance would happen if the master crashed and restarted.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: the case for machine-readable error fields
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Prefix support for synonym dictionary