On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 2:21 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 4:33 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 12:07, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 at 21:24, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 9:55 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the 0001 patch, pg_get_sequence_data() exposes two new fields
> > > > log_cnt and page_lsn. I see that the later subscriber-side patch uses
> > > > both, the first one in SetSequence(). It is not clear from the
> > > > comments or the commit message of 0001 why it is necessary to use
> > > > log_cnt when setting the sequence. Can you explain what the problem
> > > > will be if we don't use log_cnt during sequence sync?
> > >
> > > I thought to keep the log_cnt value the same value as the publisher.
> > > I have verified from the upgrade that we don't retain the log_cnt
> > > value after upgrade, even if we copy log_cnt, the value will not be
> > > retained. The attached
> > > v20251006-0001-Enhance-pg_get_sequence_data-function.patch has the
> > > changes to remove log_cnt.
> >
> > Here is the rebased remaining patches.
>
> While testing the patches with different combinations to make
> publications, I do not understand why we don't support ALL SEQUENCE
> with some table option, or is it future pending work.
>
Yes, it is left for future similar to the cases like FOR SEQUENCE s1
or FOR SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA. The key idea was to first support the
cases required for upgrade and we can later extend the feature after
some user feedback or separate discussion with -hackers to see what
others think. Does that sound reasonable to you?
>
> I am doing more review/test from a usability perspective, but thought
> of asking this, while I am reviewing further.
>
Thanks.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
