On 2013-11-14 09:47:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2013-11-14 09:23:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> We most certainly *do* discard entries, if they're not open when a cache > >> flush event comes along. > > > What I was aiming at is that we don't discard them because of a limited > > cache size. I don't think it means much that we flush the entry when > > it's changed but not referenced. > > Well, I don't want non-user-significant events (such as an sinval queue > overrun) causing sequence state to get discarded. We would get bug > reports about lost sequence values.
But we can easily do as you suggest and simply retain the entry in that case. I am just not seeing the memory overhead argument as counting much since we don't protect against it in normal operation. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
