From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2017-06-12 00:03:28 |
Message-ID: | 9761.1497225808@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I believe I've identified the reason why skink and some other buildfarm
> members have been failing the pg_upgrade test recently.
> ...
> Not sure what we want to do about it. One idea is to make
> ALTER SEQUENCE not so transactional when in binary-upgrade mode.
On closer inspection, the only thing that pg_upgrade needs is to be
able to do ALTER SEQUENCE OWNED BY without a relfilenode bump. PFA
two versions of a patch that fixes this problem, at least to the
extent that it gets through check-world without triggering the Assert
I added to GetNewRelFileNode (which HEAD doesn't). The first one
is a minimally-invasive hack; the second one puts the responsibility
for deciding if a sequence rewrite is needed into init_params. That's
bulkier but might be useful if we ever grow additional ALTER SEQUENCE
options that don't need a rewrite. OTOH, I'm not very clear on what
such options might look like, so maybe the extra flexibility is useless.
Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fix-sequence-upgrade-v1.patch | text/x-diff | 2.4 KB |
fix-sequence-upgrade-v2.patch | text/x-diff | 9.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mithun Cy | 2017-06-12 01:01:19 | Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-06-11 23:39:40 | Re: TPC-H Q20 from 1 hour to 19 hours! |