On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 4:33 PM vignesh C <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 12:07, vignesh C <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 at 21:24, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 9:55 PM vignesh C <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In the 0001 patch, pg_get_sequence_data() exposes two new fields > > > log_cnt and page_lsn. I see that the later subscriber-side patch uses > > > both, the first one in SetSequence(). It is not clear from the > > > comments or the commit message of 0001 why it is necessary to use > > > log_cnt when setting the sequence. Can you explain what the problem > > > will be if we don't use log_cnt during sequence sync? > > > > I thought to keep the log_cnt value the same value as the publisher. > > I have verified from the upgrade that we don't retain the log_cnt > > value after upgrade, even if we copy log_cnt, the value will not be > > retained. The attached > > v20251006-0001-Enhance-pg_get_sequence_data-function.patch has the > > changes to remove log_cnt. > > Here is the rebased remaining patches.
While testing the patches with different combinations to make publications, I do not understand why we don't support ALL SEQUENCE with some table option, or is it future pending work. postgres[1390699]=# CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL SEQUENCES, table test; ERROR: 42601: syntax error at or near "table" LINE 1: CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL SEQUENCES, table test; LOCATION: scanner_yyerror, scan.l:1236 postgres[1390699]=# CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR table test, ALL SEQUENCES; ERROR: 42601: syntax error at or near "all" LINE 1: CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR table test, all sequences; I am doing more review/test from a usability perspective, but thought of asking this, while I am reviewing further. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar Google
