On 11/22/21 12:31, Tom Lane wrote: > "Bossart, Nathan" <bossa...@amazon.com> writes: >> I periodically hear rumblings about this behavior as well. At the >> very least, it certainly ought to be documented if it isn't yet. I >> wouldn't mind trying my hand at that. Perhaps we could also add a new >> configuration parameter if users really want to take the performance >> hit. > > A sequence's cache length is already configurable, no? >
Cache length isn't related to the problem here. The problem is that PostgreSQL sequences are entirely unsafe to use from a durability perspective, unless there's DML in the same transaction. Users might normally think that "commit" makes things durable. Unfortunately, IIUC, that's not true for sequences in PostgreSQL. -Jeremy PS. my bad on the documentation thing... I just noticed that I said a year ago I'd take a swing at a doc update, and I never did that!! Between Nate and I we'll get something proposed. -- http://about.me/jeremy_schneider
