Re: unlogged sequences - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: unlogged sequences
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwY0oOcWMjSUAZsT=2VoNJPV2_PQOpuK5hidMKHyXLyXzg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: unlogged sequences  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 9:22 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

On 01.04.22 00:43, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hmm, so what about doing a little bit different thing:
>
> 1) owned sequences inherit persistence of the table by default
>
> 2) allow ALTER SEQUENCE to change persistence for all sequences (no
> restriction for owned sequences)
>
> 3) ALTER TABLE ... SET [UN]LOGGED changes persistence for sequences
> matching the initial table persistence

Consider that an identity sequence creates an "internal" dependency and
a serial sequence creates an "auto" dependency.

An "internal" dependency means that the internal object shouldn't really
be operated on directly.  (In some cases it's allowed for convenience.)
So I think in that case the sequence must follow the table's persistence
in all cases.  This is accomplished by setting the initial persistence
to the table's, making ALTER TABLE propagate persistence changes, and
prohibiting direct ALTER SEQUENCE SET.

An "auto" dependency is looser, so manipulating both objects
independently can be allowed.  In that case, I would do (1), (2), and (3).

(I think your (3) is already the behavior in the patch, since there are
only two persistence levels in play at that point.)

I would support having a serial sequence be allowed to be changed independently while an identity sequence is made to match the table it is owned by.  Older version restores would produce a logged serial sequence (since the sequence is independently created and then attached to the table) on unlogged tables but since identity sequences are only even implicitly created they would become unlogged as part of the restore.  Though I suspect that pg_upgrade will need to change them explicitly.

I would support all owned sequences as well, but that seems unreachable at the moment.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: unlogged sequences
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: unlogged sequences