Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:16 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:12 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 07:59:46AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Do you mean to say that if 'IsBinaryUpgrade' is true then let's not
> > > allow to launch launcher or apply worker? If so, I guess this won't be
> > > any better than prohibiting at an early stage or explicitly overriding
> > > those with internal values and documenting it, at least that way we
> > > can be consistent for both variables (max_logical_replication_workers
> > > and max_slot_wal_keep_size).
> >
> > Yes, I mean to paint an extra IsBinaryUpgrade before registering the
> > apply worker launcher. That would be consistent with what we do for
> > autovacuum in the postmaster.
> >
>
> But then we don't need the hardcoded value of
> max_logical_replication_workers as zero by pg_upgrade. I think doing
> IsBinaryUpgrade for slots won't be neat, so we anyway need to keep
> using the special value of max_slot_wal_keep_size GUC. Though the
> handling for both won't be the same but I guess given the situation,
> that seems like a reasonable thing to do. If we follow that then we
> can have this special GUC hook only for max_slot_wal_keep_size GUC.
>

Michael, Horiguchi-San, and others, do you have any thoughts on what
is the best way to proceed?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.