On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 6:01 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 8:45 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How about periodically sending this information?
>> >
>>
>> Now, if we want to support some sort of failover then probably this
>> will help. Do you have that use case in mind?
>
>
> Regular failover was a goal for supporting logical replication of sequences. That might be more common than major
upgradescenario.
>
We can't support regular failovers to subscribers unless we can
replicate/copy slots because the existing nodes connected to the
current publisher/primary would expect that. It should be primarily
useful for major version upgrades at this stage.
>>
>> If we want to send
>> periodically then we can do it when decoding checkpoint
>> (XLOG_CHECKPOINT_ONLINE) or some other periodic WAL record like
>> running_xacts (XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS).
>>
>
> Yeah. I am thinking along those lines.
>
> It must be noted, however, that none of those optional make sure that the replicated sequence's states are consistent
withthe replicated object state which use those sequences.
>
Right, I feel as others are advocating, it seems better to support it
manually via command and then later we can extend it to do at shutdown
or at some regular intervals. If we do that then we should be able to
support major version upgrades and planned switchover.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.