Re: Logical Replication of sequences

Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-04-13T23:01:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Doc: Add documentation for sequence synchronization.

  2. Remove unused assignment in CREATE PUBLICATION grammar.

  3. Add seq_sync_error_count to subscription statistics.

  4. Fix few issues in commit 5509055d69.

  5. Add sequence synchronization for logical replication.

  6. Add worker type argument to logical replication worker functions.

  7. Introduce "REFRESH SEQUENCES" for subscriptions.

  8. Refactor logical worker synchronization code into a separate file.

  9. Standardize use of REFRESH PUBLICATION in code and messages.

  10. Add "ALL SEQUENCES" support to publications.

  11. Expose sequence page LSN via pg_get_sequence_data.

  12. Resume conflict-relevant data retention automatically.

  13. Post-commit review fixes for 228c370868.

  14. Generate GUC tables from .dat file

Hi Vignesh,

Here are some review comments for patch v20250325-0001.

======
src/test/regress/expected/sequence.out

1.
+SELECT last_value, log_cnt, is_called  FROM
pg_sequence_state('sequence_test');
+ last_value | log_cnt | is_called
+------------+---------+-----------
+         99 |      32 | t
+(1 row)
+

I think 32 may seem like a surprising value to anybody reading these
results. Perhaps it will help if there can be a comment for this .sql
test to explain why this is the expected value.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia