Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2
| От | Christophe Pettus |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 29FD2D82-E3B7-4C62-B443-01800A5E78A0@thebuild.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2 (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, I wanted to hop in here on one particular issue: > On Dec 12, 2023, at 02:01, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > - desirability of the feature: Random IDs (UUIDs etc.) are likely a much > better solution for distributed (esp. active-active) systems. But there > are important use cases that are likely to keep using regular sequences > (online upgrades of single-node instances, existing systems, ...). +1. Right now, the lack of sequence replication is a rather large foot-gun on logical replication upgrades. Copying the sequencesover during the cutover period is doable, of course, but: (a) There's no out-of-the-box tooling that does it, so everyone has to write some scripts just for that one function. (b) It's one more thing that extends the cutover window. I don't think it is a good idea to make it mandatory: for example, there's a strong use case for replicating a table butnot a sequence associated with it. But it's definitely a missing feature in logical replication.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: