Re: Logical Replication of sequences
vignesh C <vignesh21@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 Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 11:46, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vignesh, > > There are still pending changes from my previous review of the > 0720-0003 patch [1], but here are some new review comments for your > latest patch v20240525-0003. > 2b. > Is it better to name these returned by-ref ptrs like 'ret_log_cnt', > and 'ret_lsn' to emphasise they are output variables? YMMV. I felt this is ok as we have mentioned in function header too > ====== > src/test/subscription/t/034_sequences.pl > > 4. > Q. Should we be suspicious that log_cnt changes from '32' to '31', or > is there a valid explanation? It smells like some calculation is > off-by-one, but without debugging I can't tell if it is right or > wrong. It works like this: for every 33 nextval we will get log_cnt as 0. So for 33 * 6(198) log_cnt will be 0, then for 199 log_cnt will be 32 and for 200 log_cnt will be 31. This pattern repeats, so this is ok. These are handled in the v20240729 version attached at [1]. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm3SucGGLe-B-a_aqWNWQZ-yfxFTiAA0JyP-SwX4jq9Y3A%40mail.gmail.com Regards, Vignesh