Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million)

On 3/22/20 2:53 PM, pabloa98 wrote:
> 
>     So the question may actually be:
> 
>     How do we improve our locking code, so we don't have to spawn millions
>     of sequences?
> 
>     What is the locking method you are using?
> 
> 
> I am not using locking with the million sequence solution. I do not want 
> something that locks because the problems described below
> 
> I prefer the solution generates a gap (skip a couple of numbers) and not 
> using locks.
> 
> 
> 
>      > The lock part is because we solved a similar problem with a
>     counter by
>      > row locking the counter and increasing it in another part of the
>      > database. The result is that all the queries using that table are
>     queued
>      > by pair (group, element) that is not that bad because we are not
>      > inserting thousands of rows by second. Still is killing cluster
>      > performance (but performance is still OK from the business point of
>      > view). The problem using locks is that they are too sensitive to
>      > developer errors and bugs. Sometimes connected clients aborts and
>     the
>      > connection is returned to the pool with the lock active until the
>      > connection is closed or someone unlocks the row. I would prefer
>     to have
>      > something more resilient to developers/programming errors, if
>     possible.
>      >
> 
> Now I read this paragraph, I realize I was not clear enough.
> I am saying we do not want to use locks because of all the problems 
> described.

And what I was asking is what locking where you doing?

And it might be better to ask the list how to solve those problems, then 
to create a whole new set of problems by using millions of sequences.


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com