On 2016-08-31 12:56:45 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I was thinking that nextval could grab a shared buffer lock and release > immediately, just to ensure no one holds exclusive buffer lock > concurrently (which would be used for things like dropping one seq tuple > from the page, when a sequence is dropped); then control access to each > sequence tuple using LockDatabaseObject. This is a HW lock, heavier > than a buffer's LWLock, but it seems better than wasting a full 8kb for > each sequence.
That's going to go be a *lot* slower, I don't think that's ok. I've a hard time worrying about the space waste here; especially considering where we're coming from. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
