I only reviewed 0003 as I saw Amit mentioned next should be 0003. Over LGTM, I
just got one comment:
>
> <v20251014-0005-Documentation-for-sequence-synchronization.patch><v20251014-0001-Update-ALTER-SUBSCRIPTION-REFRESH-to-ALTER.patch><v20251014-0002-Introduce-REFRESH-SEQUENCES-for-subscripti.patch><v20251014-0003-Reorganize-tablesync-Code-and-Introduce-sy.patch><v20251014-0004-New-worker-for-sequence-synchronization-du.patch>
In common.c:
```
- pg_log_info("reading subscription membership of tables");
+ pg_log_info("reading subscription membership of relations");
getSubscriptionTables(fout);
```
0003 is replacing “table” with “relation” everywhere, I think that's because
Sequence will be involved. In this place, why the comment is updated, but the
function name is unchanged? Looking at the function comment of
getSubscriptionTables():
/*
* getSubscriptionTables
* Get information about subscription membership for dumpable relations. This
* will be used only in binary-upgrade mode for PG17 or later versions.
*/
void
getSubscriptionTables(Archive *fout)
It also mentions “dumpable relations”. Should we update the function to use
“relation” as well?
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
