On 11/23/21, 1:41 PM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: >> I wonder though if we shouldn't try to improve the existing text. >> The phrasing "never rolled back" seems like it's too easily >> misinterpreted. Maybe rewrite the <caution> block like >> ... > > A bit of polishing later, maybe like the attached.
The doc updates look good to me. Yesterday I suggested possibly adding a way to ensure that nextval() called in an uncommitted transaction was persistent, but I think we'd have to also ensure that synchronous replication waits for those records, too. Anyway, I don't think it is unreasonable to require the transaction to be committed to avoid duplicates from nextval(). Nathan
