Re: Logical Replication of sequences - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

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.

Regards,
Vignesh