On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:35 AM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 3) > + /* Sleep for the configured interval */ > + (void) WaitLatch(MyLatch, > + WL_LATCH_SET | WL_TIMEOUT | WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH, > + sleep_ms, > + WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_SYNC_STATE_CHANGE); > > I don't think this wait-event is appropriate. Unlike tablesync, we are > not waiting for any state change here. Shall we add a new one for our > case? How about WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_SEQSYNC_MAIN? Thoughts? >
+1 for a new wait event. Few other minor comments: 1. + * Check if the subscription includes sequences and start a sequencesync + * worker if one is not already running. The active sequencesync worker will + * handle all pending sequence synchronization. If any sequences remain + * unsynchronized after it exits, a new worker can be started in the next + * iteration. * - * Start a sequencesync worker if one is not already running. The active - * sequencesync worker will handle all pending sequence synchronization. If any - * sequences remain unsynchronized after it exits, a new worker can be started - * in the next iteration. Why did this comment change? The earlier one sounds okay to me. 2. break; + case COPYSEQ_INSUFFICIENT_PERM: Why does this patch add additional new lines? We use both styles (existing and what this patch does) in the code but it seems unnecessary to change for this patch. 3. - ProcessSequencesForSync(); + + /* Check if sequence worker needs to be started */ + MaybeLaunchSequenceSyncWorker(); No need for an additional line and a comment here. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
