Re: Logical Replication of sequences
Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@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, Aug 20, 2025 at 4:57 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 3:36 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the comments, the updated version has the changes for the same. > > > > I wanted to first discuss a few design points. The patch implements > "ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION SEQUENCES" such that it > copies the existing sequences values and also adds/removes any missing > sequences. For the second part (add/remove sequences), we already have > a separate command "ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION". So, I > feel the new command should only copy the sequence values, as that > will keep the interface easy to define and understand. Additionally, > it will help to simplify the code in the patch, especially in the > function AlterSubscription_refresh. While I agree that the new command just copies the sequence values, I'm not sure the command should be implemented as an extension of ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION command. Probably what the new command does is quite different from what REFRESH PUBLICATION command does? > > We previously discussed *not* to launch an apply worker if the > corresponding publication(s) only publish sequences. See [1]. We > should consider it again to see if that is a good idea. It will have > some drawbacks as compared to the current approach of doing sync via > sync worker. The command could take time for a large number of > sequences, and on failure, retry won't happen which can happen with > background workers. Additionally, when the connect option is false for > a subscription during creation, the user needs to later call REFRESH > to sync the sequences after enabling the subscription. OTOH, doing the > sync during the command will bring more predictability and simplify > the patch. What do others think? It seems okay to me that we launch an apply worker for a subscription corresponding to sequence-only publications. I think the situation seems somewhat similar to the case where we launch an apply worker even for a subscription corresponding to empty publications. It would be quite a rare case in practice where publications have only sequences. I guess that it would rather simplify the patch if we can cut the part of doing the sync during the command (i.e., not distinguish between table-and-sequence publications and sequence-only publications), no? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com