On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 8:48 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 6:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 8:29 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The docs do refer to "currently subscribed sequences" but do not
> > > explicitly warn about this gotcha.
> > >
> > > PSA: a patch to add a clarifying sentence.
> > >
> >
> > It does not add or remove
> > sequences from the subscription to match the publication.
> > </para>
> > + <para>
> > + If the publication's sequence membership has changed,
> > + <link linkend="sql-altersubscription-params-refresh-publication">
> > + <command>ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION</command></link>
> > + should be run before <literal>REFRESH SEQUENCES</literal> to ensure the
> > + subscription's known sequence list is current.
> > + </para>
> >
> > It is already mentioned that this command "does not add or remove
> > sequences from the subscription to match the publication.". Adding
> > more information, especially a separate para for the same, appears
> > like bloating the text in docs. OTOH, I see your point of running
> > REFRESH PUBLICATION before REFRESH SEQUENCES which I tried to cover in
> > the existing paragraph. Apart from that, I have merged your
> > doc-changes from another thread [1] which is on the same topic. Let's
> > commit them together.
> >
>
> +1 to combine both patches.
>
> Upon re-reading, I think there is still ambiguity due to that word
> "synchronizing".
>
I don't read it that way. I feel the current wording is succinct and
conveys what the command is supposed to do. I read your new version of
the patch but I still like the one I shared previously, so I'll
go-ahead with that unless someone else has preference for one or the
other version.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
