On Monday November 1 2004 8:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 08:05:39AM -0600, Ed L. wrote:
> > Not necessarily.  Slony is already polling all sequences at each sync
> > interval.  A first-level improvement might be for slon to simply keep
> > track of what each last_value was the last time we checked, and if its
> > not different from *this* check, don't update the slave.  That would
> > eliminate the redundant updates without any touching of nextval()
> > functionality.
>
> It could impose a pretty severe memory footprint with a lot of
> sequences, though.

By my rough guess, it will take around 128 bytes to store all data for a 
sequence along with a few data structure pointers.  For 200 sequences, 
that's around 25KB.  Tracking roughly 8000 sequences could be done in 
exchange for 1MB of RAM.  That is a trivial amount of memory for all our 
systems.

What are you talking about?

Ed