From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "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> |
Subject: | Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node |
Date: | 2023-10-07 00:09:34 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LG_5NKYBBSxuxMVpreJWsWYWCXh9Kv5+=3LRjB0jcVkw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 6:43 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 1:48 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > The other potential problem Andres pointed out is that during shutdown
> > if due to some reason, the walreceiver goes down, we won't be able to
> > send the required WAL and users won't be able to ensure that because
> > even after restart the same situation can happen. The ideal way is to
> > have something that puts the system in READ ONLY state during shutdown
> > and then we can probably allow walreceivers to reconnect and receive
> > the required WALs. As we don't have such functionality available and
> > it won't be easy to achieve the same, we can leave this for now.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> You mean walreceiver for streaming replication? Or the apply workers
> going down for logical replication?
>
Apply workers.
>
> If there's yet-to-be-sent-out WAL,
> pg_upgrade will fail no? How does the above scenario a problem for
> pg_upgrade of a cluster with just logical replication slots?
>
Even, if there is a WAL yet to be sent, the walsender will simply exit
as it will receive PqMsg_Terminate ('X') from standby. See
ProcessRepliesIfAny(). After that shutdown checkpoint will finish. So,
in this case upgrade can fail due to slots. But, I think the server
should be able to succeed in consecutive runs. Does this make sense?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-10-07 00:19:26 | Re: typo in couple of places |
Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2023-10-06 22:30:00 | Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text |