Re: Logical Replication of sequences
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Doc: Add documentation for sequence synchronization.
- 55cefadde874 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Remove unused assignment in CREATE PUBLICATION grammar.
- bfb7419b0bbe 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add seq_sync_error_count to subscription statistics.
- f6a4c498dcf6 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix few issues in commit 5509055d69.
- 5a4eba558aa7 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add sequence synchronization for logical replication.
- 5509055d6956 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add worker type argument to logical replication worker functions.
- 3e8e05596a02 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Introduce "REFRESH SEQUENCES" for subscriptions.
- f0b3573c3aac 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Refactor logical worker synchronization code into a separate file.
- 41c674d2e31e 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Standardize use of REFRESH PUBLICATION in code and messages.
- 2436b8c047ff 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add "ALL SEQUENCES" support to publications.
- 96b378497346 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Expose sequence page LSN via pg_get_sequence_data.
- b93172ca59f4 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Resume conflict-relevant data retention automatically.
- 0d48d393d465 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Post-commit review fixes for 228c370868.
- 1f7e9ba3ac4e 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Generate GUC tables from .dat file
- 63599896545c 19 (unreleased) cited
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 5:08 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 3:36 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > 0001 and 0002 looks good, > Thanks, I pushed 0001. I feel it is better to next commit refactoring patch v20251014-0003-Reorganize-tablesync-Code-and-Introduce-sy as that would be less controversial. What do you think? > except this duplicate version checking code below in fetch_relation_list [1][2], I mean check_relkind and sequence fetching both are related changes and start from version 19, so we can do a single check. Instead of the 'check_relkind' variable name we can change it to 'support_relkind_seq' or something like that and then we can use this in both checks. > Sounds reasonable to me. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.