From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(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>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
Date: | 2025-10-09 06:02:18 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KktB7GHAU0FGkDEFtp-dZLHqFntKv0QJW4JAW9umKi5A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 11:27 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:14 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 9:13 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 5:46 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > I have one more question: while testing the sequence sync, I found
> > > > > this behavior is documented as well[1], but what's the reasoning
> > > > > behind it? Why REFRESH PUBLICATION will synchronize only newly added
> > > > > sequences and need to use REFRESH PUBLICATION SEQUENCES to
> > > > > re-synchronize all sequences.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The idea is that REFRESH PUBLICATION should behave similarly for
> > > > tables and sequences. This means that this command is primarily used
> > > > to add/remove tables/sequences and copy their respective initial
> > > > contents. The new command REFRESH PUBLICATION SEQUENCES is to sync the
> > > > existing sequences, it shouldn't add any new sequences, now, if it is
> > > > too confusing we can discuss having a different syntax for it.
> > >
> > > Sure, let's discuss this when we get this patch at the start of the
> > > commit queue.
> > >
> >
> > I have pushed the publications related patch. Now, we can discuss this
> > command. I think confusion arises from the fact that both commands use
> > REFRESH.
>
> Right
>
> So, how about for the second case (sync/copy all existing
> > sequences), we use a different command, some ideas that come to my
> > mind are:
> >
> > Alter Subscription sub1 REPLICATE Publication Sequences;
> > Alter Subscription sub1 RESYNC Publication Sequences;
> > Alter Subscription sub1 SYNC Publication Sequences;
> > Alter Subscription sub1 MERGE Publication Sequences;
> >
> > Among these, the first three require a new keyword to be introduced. I
> > prefer to use existing keyword if possible. Any ideas?
>
> I would have preferred "Alter Subscription sub1 SYNC Publication
> Sequences" but if your preference is to use existing keywords then
> IMHO "MERGE Publication Sequences" or "UPDATE Publication Sequences"
> are also good options.
>
I would prefer "COPY Publication Sequences" or "UPDATE Publication
Sequences" among the given options. We have a precedence for copy
(copy_data) in publication command parameters, so, COPY could be a
better option.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chao Li | 2025-10-09 06:04:09 | Re: Enhance Makefiles to rebuild objects on map file changes |
Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2025-10-09 06:01:47 | Re: duplicate logging in pg_createsubscriber |