On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:25 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 at 14:48, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 12:43 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:14 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 7:30 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you imagining the behavior for sequences associated with tables > > > > > differently than the ones defined by the CREATE SEQUENCE .. command? I > > > > > was thinking that users would associate sequences with publications > > > > > similar to what we do for tables for both cases. For example, they > > > > > need to explicitly mention the sequences they want to replicate by > > > > > commands like CREATE PUBLICATION ... FOR SEQUENCE s1, s2, ...; CREATE > > > > > PUBLICATION ... FOR ALL SEQUENCES, or CREATE PUBLICATION ... FOR > > > > > SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA sch1; > > > > > > > > > > In this, variants FOR ALL SEQUENCES and SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA sch1 > > > > > should copy both the explicitly defined sequences and sequences > > > > > defined with the tables. Do you think a different variant for just > > > > > copying sequences implicitly associated with tables (say for identity > > > > > columns)? > > > > > > > > Oh, I was thinking that your proposal was to copy literally all > > > > sequences by REPLICA/REFRESH SEQUENCE command. > > > > > > > > I am trying to keep the behavior as close to tables as possible. > > > > > > But it seems to make > > > > sense to explicitly specify the sequences they want to replicate. It > > > > also means that they can create a publication that has only sequences. > > > > In this case, even if they create a subscription for that publication, > > > > we don't launch any apply workers for that subscription. Right? > > > > > > > > Right, good point. I had not thought about this. > > > > > > Also, given that the main use case (at least as the first step) is > > > > version upgrade, do we really need to support SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA and > > > > even FOR SEQUENCE? > > > > > > > At the very least, we can split the patch to move these variants to a > > separate patch. Once the main patch is finalized, we can try to > > evaluate the remaining separately. > > I engaged in an offline discussion with Amit about strategizing the > division of patches to facilitate the review process. We agreed on the > following split: The first patch will encompass the setting and > getting of sequence values (core sequence changes). The second patch > will cover all changes on the publisher side related to "FOR ALL > SEQUENCES." The third patch will address subscriber side changes aimed > at synchronizing "FOR ALL SEQUENCES" publications. The fourth patch > will focus on supporting "FOR SEQUENCE" publication. Lastly, the fifth > patch will introduce support for "FOR ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA" > publication. > > I will work on this and share an updated patch for the same soon.
+1. Sounds like a good plan. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com