Re: [PATCH] Support automatic sequence replication

On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 3:26 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 9:05 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> ...
> > 3)
> > I noticed that copy_sequences is invoked twice per sync cycle—once for
> > sequences in the INIT state, and once for sequences in the READY state
> > to detect drift. This means we ping the primary twice during each sync
> > cycle. We should consider combining this logic into a single
> > copy_sequences call. Since we already have the state information
> > (INIT, READY, etc.) for each local sequence, copy_sequences can
> > internally check the current state and decide whether to transition a
> > sequence to READY based on its previous state. This approach would
> > allow us to fetch all required information from the primary in a
> > single call.
> >
> > I also think that we do not even need to mention the states here and
> > we can give a single message instead of 2:
> > DEBUG: logical replication sequence synchronization for subscription
> > "sub1" - for sequences in INIT state batch #1 = 5 attempted, 5
> > succeeded, 0 mismatched, 0 insufficient permission, 0 missing from
> > publisher, 0 skipped, 0 no drift
> > DEBUG: logical replication sequence synchronization for subscription
> > "sub1" - for sequences in READY state batch #1 = 5 attempted, 0
> > succeeded, 0 mismatched, 0 insufficient permission, 0 missing from
> > publisher, 0 skipped, 5 no drift
> >
>
> Those are DEBUG1 messages, not LOG messages, so I think the primary
> goal is to ensure that they are full of useful information to help
> debugging. Knowing the prior state information means we know that the
> "drift" logic was needed when deciding to sync or not.
>
> If message volume can be reduced without any loss of debugging
> usefulness, then great, but we need to take care not to throw the baby
> out with the bath water.
>

I think it is useful to discuss how much DEBUG information is
required. However, I would like to know if this is related to the
patch being discussed or a case in HEAD? If later, then it is better
to discuss it separately and address it as a separate patch if
required.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.