Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home

sequence - Search results

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-07-01 16:51:58 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Nathan Bossart)

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 08:33:35PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: Committed. -- nathan

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-17 01:33:35 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Nathan Bossart)

Here is a rebased version of 0002, which I intend to commit once v18 development

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-13 21:01:07 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Nathan Bossart)

Committed. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-10 21:00:55 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Nathan Bossart)

On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 11:01:01AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: Great. Rather

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-08 02:01:01 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Michael Paquier)

On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 02:39:42PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: What you

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-07 19:39:42 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Nathan Bossart)

On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 03:02:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Okay, phew

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-07 19:02:01 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Tom Lane)

Nathan Bossart writes: Oh! You're right, I'm wrong. I was looking at

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-07 18:40:51 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Nathan Bossart)

sequences appearing in the view, albeit with a NULL last_value. This check lives in the WHERE

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-07 17:44:16 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Tom Lane)

Nathan Bossart writes: Should be AND'ing not OR'ing the !TEMP condition, no

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-07 17:10:33 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Nathan Bossart)

sequences already filters it out anyway. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-04 09:47:22 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Michael Paquier)

On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:49:08PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: Of course

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-04 09:45:32 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Michael Paquier)

duplication, but you're right that the temp sequences would create more noise than now. Okay. -- Michael

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-03 21:22:06 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Tom Lane)

Nathan Bossart writes: I assume Michael meant to move the test into the C

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-03 20:49:08 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Nathan Bossart)

sequences to appear in the view. Is that desirable? I'm okay with that, but it would

Mailing lists  >>  pgsql-hackers  >>  Thread

2024-05-01 03:39:53 | Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys (Michael Paquier)

sequences. Doing that on HEAD now would be OK, but there's nothing urgent to it so it may be better