On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 8:49 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 5:28 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 2:36 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 at 14:24, shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:26 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 4:17 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for reporting this, these issues are fixed in the attached > > > > > > v20240730_2 version patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was reviewing the design of patch003, and I have a query. Do we need > > > > to even start an apply worker and create replication slot when > > > > subscription created is for 'sequences only'? IIUC, currently logical > > > > replication apply worker is the one launching sequence-sync worker > > > > whenever needed. I think it should be the launcher doing this job and > > > > thus apply worker may even not be needed for current functionality of > > > > sequence sync? > > > > > > > But that would lead to maintaining all sequence-sync of each > > subscription by launcher. Say there are 100 sequences per subscription > > and some of them from each subscription are failing due to some > > reasons then the launcher will be responsible for ensuring all the > > sequences are synced. I think it would be better to handle > > per-subscription work by the apply worker. > > I thought we can give that task to sequence-sync worker. Once sequence > sync worker is started by launcher, it keeps on syncing until all the > sequences are synced (even failed ones) and then exits only after all > are synced; instead of apply worker starting it multiple times for > failed sequences. Launcher to start sequence sync worker when signaled > by 'alter-sub refresh seq'. > But after going through details given by Vignesh in [1], I also see > the benefits of using apply worker for this task. Since apply worker > is already looping and doing that for table-sync, we can reuse the > same code for sequence sync and maintenance will be easy. So looks > okay if we go with existing apply worker design. >
Fair enough. However, I was wondering whether apply_worker should exit after syncing all sequences for a sequence-only subscription or should it be there for future commands that can refresh the subscription and add additional tables or sequences? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
