On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 8:33 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 16:10, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Agreed and I am not sure which is better because there is a value in
> > keeping the state name the same for both sequences and tables. We
> > probably need more comments in code and doc updates to make the
> > behavior clear. We can start with the sequence state as 'init' for
> > 'needs-to-be-sycned' and 'ready' for 'synced' and can change if others
> > feel so during the review.
>
> Here is a patch which does the sequence synchronization in the
> following lines from the above discussion:
>
Thanks for summarizing the points discussed. I would like to confirm
whether the patch replicates new sequences that are created
implicitly/explicitly for a publication defined as ALL SEQUENCES.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.