On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 9:22 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 6:01 PM Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 8:45 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> How about periodically sending this information? > >> > > >> > >> Now, if we want to support some sort of failover then probably this > >> will help. Do you have that use case in mind? > > > > > > Regular failover was a goal for supporting logical replication of > sequences. That might be more common than major upgrade scenario. > > > > We can't support regular failovers to subscribers unless we can > replicate/copy slots because the existing nodes connected to the > current publisher/primary would expect that. It should be primarily > useful for major version upgrades at this stage. > We don't want to design it in a way that requires major rework when we are able to copy slots and then support regular failovers. That's when the consistency between a sequence and the table using it would be a must. So it's better that we take that into consideration now. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
