RE: Logical Replication of sequences

From: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(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>, 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: 2025-10-24 03:25:49
Message-ID: TY4PR01MB169078C625FB8980E6F42F4F994F1A@TY4PR01MB16907.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thursday, October 23, 2025 2:15 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The attached patch has the changes for the same.
> I have also addressed the other comments: a) Shveta's comments at [1]
> b) Peter's comments at [2] & [3] c) Shveta's 2nd patch comments at [4] and d)
> Chao's comment#12 from [5] which was pending.

Thanks for updating the patch, I have a few comments for 0002.

1.

+ hash_seq_init(&hash_seq, sequences_to_copy);
+ while ((seq_entry = hash_seq_search(&hash_seq)) != NULL)
+ {
+ pfree(seq_entry->seqname);
+ pfree(seq_entry->nspname);
+ }
+ }
+
+ hash_destroy(sequences_to_copy);

I personally feel these memory free calls are unnecessary since the sync worker
will stop soon.

2.
-FinishSyncWorker(void)
+FinishSyncWorker(LogicalRepWorkerType wtype)

Can we directly access MyLogicalRepWorker->type instead of adding
one func parameter ?

3.

"ORDER BY s.schname, s.seqname\n",

Just to confirm, is this "ORDER BY" necessary for correctness ?

4.

elog(LOG, "skip synchronization of sequence \"%s.%s\" because it has been dropped concurrently",
nspname, seqname);

Shall we use ereport here ?

Best Regards,
Hou zj

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bryan Green 2025-10-24 04:02:50 Re: pg_ctl start may return 0 even if the postmaster has been already started on Windows
Previous Message shveta malik 2025-10-24 03:23:25 Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart