Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2026 20:35:36 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh21@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: sequencesync worker race with REFRESH SEQUENCES
Message-ID: <20260713033536.d5.noahmisch@microsoft.com>
References: <20260710045217.f0.noahmisch@microsoft.com>
 <CAA4eK1KFgVFdocPt4TPXmkkOfwY7YNRfG-0jRVKCuOaMNWSCUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20260711201410.4a.noahmisch@microsoft.com>
 <CAA4eK1+SpTvDhfwUbt9bhP0ZqLFTScQ=VceZCF25Jyn7fkAiXA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1+SpTvDhfwUbt9bhP0ZqLFTScQ=VceZCF25Jyn7fkAiXA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.3.0 (2026-01-25)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20260713033536.d5.noahmisch%40microsoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:53:42AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 1:44 AM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:

> Sounds reasonable. Considering both your points, I am leaning towards
> option (a) (during REFRESH SEQUENCES command, if we detect that the
> sequencesync worker is in progress, we make the command return ERROR
> suggesting sequence sync is already in-progress). If in future auto
> sequence sync functionality is implemented, such an ERROR could still
> be appropriate because the auto sync should automatically take care of
> syncing. Or, we can even go in the direction that we can use this
> command to somehow immediately perform an auto sequence sync cycle
> instead of time-based re-sync.

Sounds good.

> > Does that help?
> 
> Yes, thanks. But share your suggestion if you disagree with the above
> or any other fix for the problem(s) reported by you.