public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
To: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: Ajin Cherian <[email protected]>
Cc: shveta malik <[email protected]>
Cc: Ashutosh Sharma <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support automatic sequence replication
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 11:14:19 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1JnsrE1eZkqBVBQu6z0WiXChwQ=CjJjJtWS6Wu3Ze=agQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OS9PR01MB12149D9054CC7F2DC3F0D26A1F577A@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAFPTHDZXX9WQ_X1ZfEvS248T+pKuk6SmCnXcvgPM059N1xPUfA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJpy0uDLUEjHHME8om1vAf6qkXCeRR6cBvkpK8yWBAC=T0ZFLA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFPTHDZg1JrunGgOj332hr+gUuH_Jm7skqPpYSvd-QE3yEdRDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJpy0uBz7MCSUkvFJD9ij65vBahNmY+bfCgdGKRqXovYs+K_TA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJpy0uDsuNqjWd-TmGBxqSS1rnVCJ3B8=SYrtxQ=Vs8kb71QFA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJpy0uAMWg3KcXtVBS7B0rnchLNrCCVYBByJCzAp=u5LERgtfA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFPTHDZwEhxhDAeqcPi0GuYN6xBs8gFXHOMUnbg3u2Xigcz4Zg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE9k0PmTyCU1A9YEf+MRgfeZ8yK1bAYJu=o0bH8DNUTzXejQyQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1L6czEzG4mLNZSyjYC5nX0FMSjjk3csKuxPD3Ph5-7Yvw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJpy0uAhGQJ=msVsn2GsqWXr+YESJK6x9NBvrUtKvtvp1OVuKQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJpy0uAOuu-M6wobH2wHOdTymm-cX9+MqwPyRNoOt=sPKBdCew@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFPTHDZiWYXoKoo4VcBYNH9a=gxDZhfkcBeXt5w6cLw4_ysyKw@mail.gmail.com>
<OS9PR01MB12149D9054CC7F2DC3F0D26A1F577A@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 6:56 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 06.
> Not sure if the issue should be discussed here, but I found that sequences more
> likely to go backward if users use sequences on the subscriber side.
> Previously, the sync could happen based on the request, and users could understand
> the risk. But now everything would be done automatically, thus they may be
> surprised more.
>
> Should we consider some ratchet mechanisms, or retain it now because it's not
> expected usage?
>
We discussed this case upthread. We ideally can handle it via
conflict/resolution strategy or simply avoid updating the sequences
that are synced from the publisher. If we do later it would be tricky
because we need to maintain a persistent state and then after
failover, that state should be cleared. We discussed to have it
documented that users should use such sequences only during upgrade or
for failover cases, allowing to update it actively on multiple nodes
can lead to inconsistency.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
view thread (58+ messages) latest in thread
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], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support automatic sequence replication
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1JnsrE1eZkqBVBQu6z0WiXChwQ=CjJjJtWS6Wu3Ze=agQ@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