Re: pg_upgrade's interaction with pg_resetwal seems confusing

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: 'vignesh C' <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade's interaction with pg_resetwal seems confusing
Date: 2023-10-18 15:35:33
Message-ID: 202310181535.b2hci263as76@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Note that this patch falsifies the comment in SetNextObjectId that
taking the lock is pro forma only -- it no longer is, since in upgrade
mode there can be multiple subprocesses running -- so I think it should
be updated.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2023-10-18 15:38:18 Re: Add support for AT LOCAL
Previous Message Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker 2023-10-18 15:06:59 Re: Query execution in Perl TAP tests needs work