On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 at 09:19, Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Vignesh, > > Some review comments patch V20251029-0001 (the test code only) > > ====== > src/test/subscription/t/036_sequences.pl > > 1. > +########## > +## ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION with (copy_data = off) should > +# not update the sequence values for the new sequence. > +########## > + > +# Create a new sequence 'regress_s4' > +$node_publisher->safe_psql( > + 'postgres', qq( > + CREATE SEQUENCE regress_s4; > + INSERT INTO regress_seq_test SELECT nextval('regress_s4') FROM > generate_series(1,100); > +)); > + > > AFAICT the sequence `regress_s3` (from the previous test part) was > already a "new sequence" that had not yet been REFRESHED to the > subscriber. So I think maybe there wasn't any need to create another > sequence `regress_s4` for this test part.
Modified > ~~~ > > 2. > +# Check - newly published sequence values are not updated > +$result = $node_subscriber->safe_psql( > + 'postgres', qq( > + SELECT last_value, log_cnt, is_called FROM regress_s4; > +)); > > Maybe that comment can give more details: > # Check - newly published sequence values are not updated when (copy_data = > off) Modified > ~~~ > > 3. > +########## > +# ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION should report an error when: > +# a) sequence definitions differ between the publisher and subscriber, or > +# b) a sequence is missing on the publisher. > +########## > > OK, you have these mismatch parameters and missing sequences test for > "REFRESH PUBLICATION", but what about doing the same tests for > "REFRESH SEQUENCES" -- e,g, I am thinking you can ALTER/DROP some > publication that previously had synchronized OK, to verify what > happens during "REFRESH SEQUENCES". I'm planning to do this in a later version. The changes for the same are available in the v20251029_2 version patch attached at [1]. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm18siwD6Mamv8Dd8ubwSCw3Fi6SnB4B3Lr%2B4R7snLkfeA%40mail.gmail.com Regards, Vignesh
