On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 6:01 PM Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 8:45 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> How about periodically sending this information? >> > >> >> Now, if we want to support some sort of failover then probably this >> will help. Do you have that use case in mind? > > > Regular failover was a goal for supporting logical replication of sequences. That might be more common than major upgrade scenario. >
We can't support regular failovers to subscribers unless we can replicate/copy slots because the existing nodes connected to the current publisher/primary would expect that. It should be primarily useful for major version upgrades at this stage.
We don't want to design it in a way that requires major rework when we are able to copy slots and then support regular failovers. That's when the consistency between a sequence and the table using it would be a must. So it's better that we take that into consideration now.
