On 18.12.21 22:48, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> What do you mean by "not caching unused sequence numbers"? Reducing
> SEQ_LOG_VALS to 1, i.e. WAL-logging every sequence increment?
>
> That'd work, but I wonder how significant the impact will be. It'd bet
> it hurts the patch adding logical decoding of sequences quite a bit.
It might be worth testing. This behavior is ancient and has never
really been scrutinized since it was added.
