On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:53 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 10:27, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanation, but I am still not getting it completely,
> > do you mean to say unless all the sequences are not synced any of the
> > sequences would not be marked "ready" in pg_subscription_rel? Is that
> > necessary? I mean why we can not sync the sequences one by one and
> > mark them ready? Why it is necessary to either have all the sequences
> > synced or none of them?
>
> Since updating the sequence is one operation and setting
> pg_subscription_rel is another, I was trying to avoid a situation
> where the sequence is updated but its state is not reflected in
> pg_subscription_rel. It seems you are suggesting that it's acceptable
> for the sequence to be updated even if its state isn't updated in
> pg_subscription_rel, and in such cases, the sequence value does not
> need to be reverted.
Right, the complexity we're adding to achieve a behavior that may not
be truly desirable is a concern. For instance, if we mark the status
as ready but do not sync the sequences, it could lead to issues.
However, if we have synced some sequences but encounter a failure
without marking the status as ready, I don't consider it inconsistent
in any way. But anyway, now I understand your thinking behind that so
it's a good idea to leave this design behavior for a later decision.
Gathering more opinions and insights during later stages will provide
a clearer perspective on how to proceed with this aspect. Thanks.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com