On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 at 14:33, shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 2:24 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:26 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 4:17 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for reporting this, these issues are fixed in the attached > > > > v20240730_2 version patch. > > > > > > > > I was reviewing the design of patch003, and I have a query. Do we need > > to even start an apply worker and create replication slot when > > subscription created is for 'sequences only'? IIUC, currently logical > > replication apply worker is the one launching sequence-sync worker > > whenever needed. I think it should be the launcher doing this job and > > thus apply worker may even not be needed for current functionality of > > sequence sync? Going forward when we implement incremental sync of > > sequences, then we may have apply worker started but now it is not > > needed. > > > > Also, can we please mention the state change and 'who does what' atop > sequencesync.c file similar to what we have atop tablesync.c file > otherwise it is difficult to figure out the flow.
I have added this in sequencesync.c file, the changes for the same are available at v20240805_2 version patch at [1]. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm1kk1MHGk3BU_XTxay%3DdR6sMHnm4TT5cmVz2f_JXkWENQ%40mail.gmail.com Regards, Vignesh
