| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Include sequences in publications created by pg_createsubscriber |
| Date: | 2026-06-25 05:57:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+PsTUJLhPyUq84KfEnMwjmFz0813_LAOk57F+TFmBqwF6g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 5:35 PM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 6:29 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > 3.
> > <para>
> > Enable the subscription for each specified database on the target server.
> > The subscription starts applying transactions from the replication start
> > - point.
> > + point. The subscription is configured to include sequences.
> > </para>
> >
> > This implies there was some special subscription "configuration" for
> > getting sequences, but it just gets sequences because sequences were
> > published. Maybe you don't need to say anything here. Or, maybe reword
> > to just say "The subscription will include sequences".
> >
>
> What if the subscription uses an existing publication that doesn't
> include sequences? In that case, would it be correct to say that the
> subscription will include sequences?
>
Oops. Fair point. Looks like the original patch text suffered similar issues.
A more descriptive explanation seems needed for this to talk about the
differences of internal publications versus user-supplied ones....
e.g. a user-publication may even be only FOR ALL SEQUENCES and not
even have tables in them... then what?
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2026-06-25 06:03:00 | Re: doc: fix pg_stat_autovacuum_scores threshold wording |
| Previous Message | cca5507 | 2026-06-25 05:53:39 | Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum |