On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 at 18:45, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 8:33 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 16:10, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed and I am not sure which is better because there is a value in
> > > keeping the state name the same for both sequences and tables. We
> > > probably need more comments in code and doc updates to make the
> > > behavior clear. We can start with the sequence state as 'init' for
> > > 'needs-to-be-sycned' and 'ready' for 'synced' and can change if others
> > > feel so during the review.
> >
> > Here is a patch which does the sequence synchronization in the
> > following lines from the above discussion:
> >
>
> Thanks for summarizing the points discussed. I would like to confirm
> whether the patch replicates new sequences that are created
> implicitly/explicitly for a publication defined as ALL SEQUENCES.
Currently, FOR ALL SEQUENCES publication both explicitly created
sequences and implicitly created sequences will be synchronized during
the creation of subscriptions (using CREATE SUBSCRIPTION) and
refreshing publication sequences(using ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH
PUBLICATION SEQUENCES).
Therefore, the explicitly created sequence seq1:
CREATE SEQUENCE seq1;
and the implicitly created sequence seq_test2_c2_seq for seq_test2 table:
CREATE TABLE seq_test2 (c1 int, c2 SERIAL);
will both be synchronized.
Regards,
Vignesh
