On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 2014-07-07 09:57:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Well, see the comment that explains why the logic is like this now: > >> I think we should 'simply' make sequences assign a toplevel xid - then >> we can get rid of that special case in RecordTransactionCommit(). And I >> think the performance benefit of not having to wait on XLogFlush() for >> readonly xacts due to hot prunes far outweighs the decrease due to the >> xid assignment/commit record. I don't think that nextval()s are called >> overly much without a later xid assigning statement. > > Yeah, that could well be true. I'm not sure if there are any other cases > where we have non-xid-assigning operations that are considered part of > what has to be flushed before reporting commit;
Maybe pg_switch_xlog(). > if there are not, I'd > be okay with changing nextval() this way. +1 Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
