Re: Logical Replication of sequences
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1JTyjm=UgXy=nRHKDgcgxuF4iUw9+187z4Okx_OzF5QrA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Logical Replication of sequences (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 7:54 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 04, 2025 at 09:24:32PM +0530, Amit Kapila 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? > > FWIW, I have argued two times at least that it should never be > necessary to expose log_cnt in the sequence meta-data: this is just a > counter to decide when a WAL record of a sequence should be generated. > > If you are copying some sequence data over the wire on a new node in a > logical shape where WAL is independent, this counter is irrelevant: > you can just reset it. Please see also a83a944e9fdd. > Agreed and I think we have the same behaviour after upgrade. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: