Re: [BUGS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec kpointed

2002-03-13 Thread Tom Lane
I said: > Mmm ... maybe. Is this safe if a checkpoint is currently in progress? > Seems like you could look at RedoRecPtr and decide you are okay, but you > really are not if checkpointer has already dumped sequence' disk > buffer and will later set RedoRecPtr to a value beyond the old LSN. Oh,

Re: [BUGS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec kpointed

2002-03-13 Thread Tom Lane
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems safe to do NOT write WAL record if sequence > LSN > system RedoRecPtr because of checkpoint started after our > check would finish only after writing to disk sequence buffer with > proper last_value and log_cnt (nextval keeps lock on sequence