On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 02:55:33PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:06 AM vignesh C <[email protected]> wrote: > > Here's the summary of the findings: > > Finding 1: Refresh paths race the in-flight sequencesync worker - > > committed (45cf7b1e5bf923ca48dfd9aa5001bdd0630d11c3) > > Finding 2: `default_transaction_read_only=on` permanently blocks > > sequence sync - committed (4cd02d552263ed8d4b148aaefd24cd9dd8af57ed) > > Finding 3: `run_as_owner=false`: one un-SET-ROLE-able sequence owner > > stalls all sequence sync, unattributed - Rejected at [1] > > Finding 4: Gathering scan holds a lock on every INIT relation in one > > unbounded transaction - committed > > (c12c101b0846b1e6488f2dc986a852fbc6bf2e3b) > > Finding 5: Sequencesync worker starved by tablesync workers; REFRESH > > SEQUENCES silently deferred - Rejected at [1] > > Finding 6: No publisher-version guard: pre-PG19 publisher causes a > > perpetual, cryptic error loop - committed > > (57e7c52c0fe43fff36d0f4440eea13cf5668b160) > > Finding 7: `has_sequence_privilege()` NULL on concurrent publisher > > DROP: Assert crash / wrong diagnosis - committed > > (55f518684895bfe43e667acf59284b49707ee685) > > Finding 8: Permission-denied sequences double-reported as "missing on > > publisher" - committed (13b7a8a0ef56d9decae284b4983894175c17d217) > > Finding 9: ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... DISABLE never stops a running > > sequencesync worker - committed > > (b8d9cf512c1259f97f9896593cc1c8352c1118ac) > > Finding 10: REFRESH SEQUENCES vs concurrent subscriber DROP SEQUENCE: > > internal XX000 errors - Rejected at [1] > > Finding 11: Sequence-removal loop runs after irreversible tablesync > > slot drops - committed (b8d9cf512c1259f97f9896593cc1c8352c1118ac) > > Finding 12: Batch query mixes MVCC definition columns with live > > `last_value`: validation bypass - this is a base code issue, which is. > > being tracked at [2] > > Finding 13: REFRESH SEQUENCES warning misattributes a `copy_data` > > request the command cannot express - committed > > (00b3e50054dad648e74d19cc199555381ab366d2) > > Finding 14: psql tab-completion regression after `REFRESH PUBLICATION` > > - committed (b8d9cf512c1259f97f9896593cc1c8352c1118ac) > > Finding 15: pg_stat_subscription row for the sequencesync worker: > > fabricated times, undocumented NULLs - committed > > (b8d9cf512c1259f97f9896593cc1c8352c1118ac) > > Finding 16: catalogs.sgml `srsublsn` description wrong for sequence > > rows - committed (b8d9cf512c1259f97f9896593cc1c8352c1118ac) > > Finding 17: Docs omit the PG19+ publisher requirement for sequence > > sync; REFRESH SEQUENCES silently no-ops - committed > > (57e7c52c0fe43fff36d0f4440eea13cf5668b160) > > Finding 18: Restrictions bullet still claims only tables can be > > replicated - Rejected at [1] > > > > With all agreed issues now committed, the remaining four findings > > rejected by consensus, and Finding 12 being tracked separately as a > > pre-existing base code issue, I believe all items have been addressed. > > I felt this thread can now be marked as closed. > > I agree with your analysis of the reported issues and will close the > corresponding open item [1] early next week unless someone thinks > otherwise. Noah, would you like to cross-verify?
No need to involve me at that level of detail. Thanks. I'm glad some of the lesser findings also deserved changes.
