Fix comment in report_sequence_errors()
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t139893psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v1 (message #1), July 29, 2026 at 12:52 AM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t139893_1 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t139893_1 && git checkout t139893_1Patchset v1 (message #1) is on t139893_1
Hi
I noticed an incorrect comment in report_sequence_errors() in sequencesync.c.
The function comment describes case (c) as:
```
* c) missing sequences on the subscriber
```
However, the actual warning message emitted and the logic that
populates missing_seqs_idx both refer to sequences that are missing on
the publisher side, not the subscriber.
The fix is to replace "subscriber" with "publisher" in that comment line.
Thanks
Imran Zaheer
On Sun, Jun 07, 2026 at 07:35:05PM +0500, Imran Zaheer wrote:
However, the actual warning message emitted and the logic that
populates missing_seqs_idx both refer to sequences that are missing on
the publisher side, not the subscriber.The fix is to replace "subscriber" with "publisher" in that comment line.
The first comment could also make clear the fact that we care about
inconsistent definitions on the subscriber side. Grabbed these,
thanks.
--
Michael
On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 5:58 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 07, 2026 at 07:35:05PM +0500, Imran Zaheer wrote:
However, the actual warning message emitted and the logic that
populates missing_seqs_idx both refer to sequences that are missing on
the publisher side, not the subscriber.The fix is to replace "subscriber" with "publisher" in that comment line.
The first comment could also make clear the fact that we care about
inconsistent definitions on the subscriber side. Grabbed these,
thanks.
The patch looks good to me. IIUC, you are planning to commit this one
along with some other typo/minor fixes, right?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.