On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:53:42AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 1:44 AM Noah Misch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sounds reasonable. Considering both your points, I am leaning towards > option (a) (during REFRESH SEQUENCES command, if we detect that the > sequencesync worker is in progress, we make the command return ERROR > suggesting sequence sync is already in-progress). If in future auto > sequence sync functionality is implemented, such an ERROR could still > be appropriate because the auto sync should automatically take care of > syncing. Or, we can even go in the direction that we can use this > command to somehow immediately perform an auto sequence sync cycle > instead of time-based re-sync. Sounds good. > > Does that help? > > Yes, thanks. But share your suggestion if you disagree with the above > or any other fix for the problem(s) reported by you.
