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 Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 2:41 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 4:52 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 12:09, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
>
> I think the patch is mostly LGTM, I have 2 suggestions, see if you
> think this is useful.
>
> 1.
> postgres[1390699]=# CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL SEQUENCES, ALL
> TABLES WITH (publish = insert);
> NOTICE: 55000: publication parameters are not applicable to sequence
> synchronization and will be ignored
> LOCATION: CreatePublication, publicationcmds.c:905
>
> IMHO this notice seems confusing, from this it appears that (publish =
> insert) is ignored completely, but actually it is is not ignored for
> table, should we explicitely say that it will be ignored only for
> sequences. Something like below?
>
> "publication parameters are not applicable to sequence synchronization
> so it will be used only for tables and will be ignored for sequence
> synchronization"
> or
> "publication parameters are not applicable to sequence synchronization
> so it will be ignored for the sequence synchronization"
>
How about a slightly shorter form like: 'publication parameters are
not applicable to sequence synchronization and will be ignored for
sequences'?
> 2.
> + if (schemaidlist && (pubform->puballtables || pubform->puballsequences))
> + {
> + if (pubform->puballtables && pubform->puballsequences)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> + errmsg("publication \"%s\" is defined as FOR ALL TABLES, ALL SEQUENCES",
> + NameStr(pubform->pubname)),
> + errdetail("Schemas cannot be added to or dropped from FOR ALL
> TABLES, ALL SEQUENCES publications."));
> + else if (pubform->puballtables)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> + errmsg("publication \"%s\" is defined as FOR ALL TABLES",
> + NameStr(pubform->pubname)),
> + errdetail("Schemas cannot be added to or dropped from FOR ALL TABLES
> publications."));
> + else
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> + errmsg("publication \"%s\" is defined as FOR ALL SEQUENCES",
> + NameStr(pubform->pubname)),
> + errdetail("Schemas cannot be added to or dropped from FOR ALL
> SEQUENCES publications."));
> + }
>
> Can't we make this a single generic error message instead of
> duplicating for each combination? Something like
>
> errmsg("publication \"%s\" is defined as FOR ALL TABLES or ALL SEQUENCES",
> NameStr(pubform->pubname)),
> errdetail("Schemas cannot be added to or dropped from FOR ALL TABLES
> or ALL SEQUENCES publications."));
>
Yeah, we can do that but Note that these messages are for the
existing publication and we are aware of its publicized contents, so
we can give clear messages to users. Why make it ambiguous?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.