On 11/22/21 12:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> writes:
>> I periodically hear rumblings about this behavior as well. At the
>> very least, it certainly ought to be documented if it isn't yet. I
>> wouldn't mind trying my hand at that. Perhaps we could also add a new
>> configuration parameter if users really want to take the performance
>> hit.
>
> A sequence's cache length is already configurable, no?
>
Cache length isn't related to the problem here.
The problem is that PostgreSQL sequences are entirely unsafe to use from
a durability perspective, unless there's DML in the same transaction.
Users might normally think that "commit" makes things durable.
Unfortunately, IIUC, that's not true for sequences in PostgreSQL.
-Jeremy
PS. my bad on the documentation thing... I just noticed that I said a
year ago I'd take a swing at a doc update, and I never did that!!
Between Nate and I we'll get something proposed.
--
http://about.me/jeremy_schneider
