RE: Logical Replication of sequences
Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.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 Tuesday, October 14, 2025 6:07 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 3:33 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > 0003~0005: > > Unchanged. > > > > TODO: > > * The latest comment from Shveta[5]. > > * The comment from Amit[6] to avoid creating slot/origin for sequence only > subscription. > > > > Few comments on 0003 and 0004 based on previous version of the patch. > As those are not changed, so I assume they apply for the new version > as well. Thanks for the comments. > > 2. > - /* Process any tables that are being synchronized in parallel. */ > + /* > + * Process any tables that are being synchronized in parallel and any > + * newly added relations. > + */ > ProcessSyncingRelations(commit_data.end_lsn); > > pgstat_report_activity(STATE_IDLE, NULL); > @@ -1364,7 +1372,10 @@ apply_handle_prepare(StringInfo s) > > in_remote_transaction = false; > > - /* Process any tables that are being synchronized in parallel. */ > + /* > + * Process any tables that are being synchronized in parallel and any > + * newly added relations. > + */ > ProcessSyncingRelations(prepare_data.end_lsn); > > In the first line of comment, it is mentioned as tables and in the > second line, the relations are mentioned. I think as part of this it > can process sequences as well if any are added. I wonder whether this > (while applying prepare/commit) is the right time to invoke it for > sequences. The apply worker do need to invoke sequencesync worker if > required but not sure if this is the right place. I agree that we can start sequence sync worker at any point regardless of the transaction boundary, because we do not support incremental seq sync, so another approach could be to call ProcessSyncingSequencesForApply() in the main loop of LogicalRepApplyLoop(), similar to maybe_advance_nonremovable_xid(). OTOH, I think the current implementation also works, because we have one ProcessSyncingRelations() call in the main loop as well. What do you think ? > > 4. > @@ -3284,7 +3307,7 @@ FindDeletedTupleInLocalRel(Relation localrel, > Oid localidxoid, > */ > LWLockAcquire(LogicalRepWorkerLock, LW_SHARED); > leader = logicalrep_worker_find(MyLogicalRepWorker->subid, > - InvalidOid, false); > + InvalidOid, false, false); > > … > extern LogicalRepWorker *logicalrep_worker_find(Oid subid, Oid relid, > + LogicalRepWorkerType wtype, > bool only_running); > > The third parameter is LogicalRepWorkerType and passing it false in > the above usage doesn't make sense. Also, we should update comments > atop logicalrep_worker_find as to why worker_type is required. I want > to know why subid+relid combination is not sufficient to identify the > workers uniquely. I think it's because sequencesync worker also do not have a valid relid, similar to the apply worker, so we would need the worker type to distinguish them. I added some general comments atop of the function in the latest version. Best Regards, Hou zj