On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:53 AM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 10:27, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@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
