On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 8:33 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 16:10, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Agreed and I am not sure which is better because there is a value in > > keeping the state name the same for both sequences and tables. We > > probably need more comments in code and doc updates to make the > > behavior clear. We can start with the sequence state as 'init' for > > 'needs-to-be-sycned' and 'ready' for 'synced' and can change if others > > feel so during the review. > > Here is a patch which does the sequence synchronization in the > following lines from the above discussion: >
Thanks for summarizing the points discussed. I would like to confirm whether the patch replicates new sequences that are created implicitly/explicitly for a publication defined as ALL SEQUENCES. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
