> > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > >> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >>> I did think about using a cluster-wide sequence, if we can make such > >>> a thing (might also be useful for system generated UIDs too). > >> > >> Not a good idea IMHO. If you do that, then there will be no such thing > >> as a purely read-only transaction, because *every* transaction will > >> include a nextval() call. That means even read-only transactions cannot > >> commit till the disk spins. > >>
A sequence could be used if it was created with a sufficiently large CACHE value, so a read only transaction would only have to hit the disk if it happened to be the one to hit an exhausted cache. Kris Jurka ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
