No. I had fsync on.
- Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 19 December 2001 18:49
To: Mikheev, Vadim
Cc: Henshall, Stuart - WCP; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [BUGS] After ~Crash Sequence not correct
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It was made to avoid WAL-loging on each nextval call, ie it should work
> like OID pre-fetching: value stored in WAL must always "exceed" values
> returned by nextval so on the after-crash-restart sequence should be
> advanced to value which was never returned by nextval (for non-cycled
> sequences). Maybe I made some mistakes in implementation?
Oh, okay. What I saw was that the next nextval() after restart was
higher than what I was expecting; but that's correct given the prefetch
behavior.
But we've seen several reports wherein the value appeared to go
backwards after a crash.
Stuart, you weren't running with -F (fsync off) by any chance, were you?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
