| From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
| Date: | 2025-10-15 08:28:28 |
| Message-ID: | 158C2EDB-D505-46A6-996D-296EC1B3ACE2@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I only reviewed 0003 as I saw Amit mentioned next should be 0003. Over LGTM, I just got one comment:
>
> <v20251014-0005-Documentation-for-sequence-synchronization.patch><v20251014-0001-Update-ALTER-SUBSCRIPTION-REFRESH-to-ALTER.patch><v20251014-0002-Introduce-REFRESH-SEQUENCES-for-subscripti.patch><v20251014-0003-Reorganize-tablesync-Code-and-Introduce-sy.patch><v20251014-0004-New-worker-for-sequence-synchronization-du.patch>
In common.c:
```
- pg_log_info("reading subscription membership of tables");
+ pg_log_info("reading subscription membership of relations");
getSubscriptionTables(fout);
```
0003 is replacing “table” with “relation” everywhere, I think that's because Sequence will be involved. In this place, why the comment is updated, but the function name is unchanged? Looking at the function comment of getSubscriptionTables():
/*
* getSubscriptionTables
* Get information about subscription membership for dumpable relations. This
* will be used only in binary-upgrade mode for PG17 or later versions.
*/
void
getSubscriptionTables(Archive *fout)
It also mentions “dumpable relations”. Should we update the function to use “relation” as well?
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2025-10-15 08:38:24 | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-10-15 07:59:40 | Re: MergeAppend could consider sorting cheapest child path |