On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 10:56 -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
<snip>
> A trigger on a sequence change is a terrible idea.  The whole reason
> sequences are transactional, &c., is to eliminate all the concurrency
> issues that might arise.  Adding a trigger or any other such
> functionality is just a recipe for concurrency costs.  

True... so what's a good way of ensuring we get an overall win here?
i.e. Reducing the total cost from finding the latest sequence number
with each sync, *more* than the overhead involved from adding some
mechanism to do it.

Would perhaps just having a simple bitfield array for all of the
replicated sequences, that gets toggled to "on" for when a sequence is
updated and the sync event checks that array and clears it?

(I guess I'm showing my not-a-C-programmer thought processes here.  ;> )

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift