MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAHut+PtFkGvZNihGRDoghWNKMfJufEpR9+thbG_8qPQ7RyVN4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1Jr-f1fhELi2XxF=u8NNBBNOPv7dQiNPFsd3twC1w98BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHut+PurBp3fHRMBO18Jeg_1TeeWjY9XYk6rD6fXAKgDRQxaMg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHut+PurBp3fHRMBO18Jeg_1TeeWjY9XYk6rD6fXAKgDRQxaMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:18:42 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAA4eK1JkeynJa4o62yDVANGvOJDGLtYGkbzBaKV-gvH7Me-ewA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DOCS - Clarify that REFRESH SEQUENCES might be using stale
 publication data
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JkeynJa4o62yDVANGvOJDGLtYGkbzBaKV-gvH7Me-ewA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 8:48=E2=80=AFAM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 6:48=E2=80=AFPM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 8:29=E2=80=AFAM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.c=
om> 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=3D"sql-altersubscription-params-refresh-publicatio=
n">
> > +      <command>ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION</command></l=
ink>
> > +      should be run before <literal>REFRESH SEQUENCES</literal> to ens=
ure 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.

--=20
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.