Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade

On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 11:40 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> At Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:53:07 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > Michael, Horiguchi-San, and others, do you have any thoughts on what
> > is the best way to proceed?
>
> As I previously mentioned, I believe that if rejection is to be the
> course of action, it would be best to proceed with it sooner rather
> than later. On the other hand, I am concerned about the need for users
> to perform extra steps depending on the source cluster
> conrfiguration. Therefore, another possible approach could be to
> simply ignore the given settings in the assignment hook rather than
> rejecting by the check hook, and forcibuly apply -1.
>
> What do you think about this third approach?
>

I have also proposed that as one of the alternatives but didn't get
many votes. And, I think if the user is passing a special value of
max_slot_wal_keep_size during the upgrade, it has to be a special
case, and rejecting it upfront doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.