From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node |
Date: | 2023-10-16 09:13:57 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K+U0SHTQyBnWj+m8daEQT=gKk0-ddtknM1TqeB=7wogg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 10:45 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Here is a new patch.
>
> Previously I wrote:
> > Based on above idea, I made new version patch which some functionalities were
> > exported from pg_resetwal. In this approach, pg_upgrade itself removed WALs and
> > then create logical slots, then pg_resetwal would be called with new option
> > --no-switch, which avoid to switch a WAL segment file. The option is only used
> > for the upgrading purpose so it is not written in doc and usage(). This option
> > is not required if pg_resetwal -o does not discard WAL records. Please see the
> > fork thread [1].
>
> But for now, these changes were reverted because changing pg_resetwal -o stuff
> may be a bit risky. This has been located more than ten years so that we should
> be more careful for modifying.
> Also, I cannot come up with problems if slots are created after the pg_resetwal.
> Background processes would not generate decodable changes (listed in [1]), and
> BGworkers by extensions could be ignored [2].
> Based on the discussion on forked thread [3] and if it is accepted, we will apply
> again.
>
Yeah, I think introducing additional complexity unless it is really
required sounds a bit scary to me as well. BTW, please find attached
some cosmetic changes.
One minor additional comment:
+# Initialize subscriber cluster
+my $subscriber = PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster->new('subscriber');
+$subscriber->init(allows_streaming => 'logical');
Why do we need to set wal_level as logical for subscribers?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v50_changes_amit_1.patch.txt | text/plain | 7.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2023-10-16 09:25:24 | Re: BRIN minmax multi - incorrect distance for infinite timestamp/date |
Previous Message | Nikita Malakhov | 2023-10-16 08:33:53 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |