On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:52 PM Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com> wrote:
The behavior we're observing is that a nextval() call in a committed
transaction is not crash-safe. This was discovered because some applications were using nextval() to get a guaranteed unique sequence number [or so they thought], then the application did some processing with the value and later stored it in a relation of the same database.
The nextval() number was not used until the transaction was committed -
I don't know what this line means. You said it was stored in a relation, surely that needs to have happened through some command which preceded the commit chronologically, though formally they may have happened atomically.
but then the fact of a value being generated, returned and committed was lost on crash. The nextval() call used in isolation did not seem to provide durability.
Are you clarifying the original complaint, or this a new, different complaint? Vini's test cases don't include any insertions. Do you have test cases that can reproduce your complaint?
