Re: sequencesync worker race with REFRESH SEQUENCES

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:53:42AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 1:44 AM Noah Misch  wrote:

> Sounds reasonable. Considering both your points, I am leaning towards
> option (a) (during REFRESH SEQUENCES command, if we detect that the
> sequencesync worker is in progress, we make the command return ERROR
> suggesting sequence sync is already in-progress). If in future auto
> sequence sync functionality is implemented, such an ERROR could still
> be appropriate because the auto sync should automatically take care of
> syncing. Or, we can even go in the direction that we can use this
> command to somehow immediately perform an auto sequence sync cycle
> instead of time-based re-sync.

Sounds good.

> > Does that help?
> 
> Yes, thanks. But share your suggestion if you disagree with the above
> or any other fix for the problem(s) reported by you.