public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
To: Peter Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: DOCS - Clarify that REFRESH SEQUENCES might be using stale publication data
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:18:42 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1JkeynJa4o62yDVANGvOJDGLtYGkbzBaKV-gvH7Me-ewA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHut+PurBp3fHRMBO18Jeg_1TeeWjY9XYk6rD6fXAKgDRQxaMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHut+PtFkGvZNihGRDoghWNKMfJufEpR9+thbG_8qPQ7RyVN4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1Jr-f1fhELi2XxF=u8NNBBNOPv7dQiNPFsd3twC1w98BA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHut+PurBp3fHRMBO18Jeg_1TeeWjY9XYk6rD6fXAKgDRQxaMg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 8:48 AM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 6:48 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 8:29 AM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The docs do refer to "currently subscribed sequences" but do not
> > > explicitly warn about this gotcha.
> > >
> > > PSA: a patch to add a clarifying sentence.
> > >
> >
> > It does not add or remove
> >        sequences from the subscription to match the publication.
> >       </para>
> > +     <para>
> > +      If the publication's sequence membership has changed,
> > +      <link linkend="sql-altersubscription-params-refresh-publication">
> > +      <command>ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION</command></link>
> > +      should be run before <literal>REFRESH SEQUENCES</literal> to ensure the
> > +      subscription's known sequence list is current.
> > +     </para>
> >
> > It is already mentioned that this command "does not add or remove
> > sequences from the subscription to match the publication.". Adding
> > more information, especially a separate para for the same, appears
> > like bloating the text in docs. OTOH, I see your point of running
> > REFRESH PUBLICATION before REFRESH SEQUENCES which I tried to cover in
> > the existing paragraph. Apart from that, I have merged your
> > doc-changes from another thread [1] which is on the same topic. Let's
> > commit them together.
> >
>
> +1 to combine both patches.
>
> Upon re-reading, I think there is still ambiguity due to that word
> "synchronizing".
>

I don't read it that way. I feel the current wording is succinct and
conveys what the command is supposed to do. I read your new version of
the patch but I still like the one I shared previously, so I'll
go-ahead with that unless someone else has preference for one or the
other version.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

view thread (4+ messages)

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: DOCS - Clarify that REFRESH SEQUENCES might be using stale publication data
  In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1JkeynJa4o62yDVANGvOJDGLtYGkbzBaKV-gvH7Me-ewA@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox