From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node |
Date: | 2023-09-01 04:17:53 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-smtENN4yBcsS9QwcHWzR2G1mEc3iErceHzHvnmKWJjZQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 7:56 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks for giving comments!
Thanks
> > Some comments in 0002
> >
> > 1.
> > + res = executeQueryOrDie(conn, "SELECT slot_name "
> > + "FROM pg_catalog.pg_replication_slots "
> > + "WHERE slot_type = 'logical' AND "
> > + "temporary IS FALSE;");
> >
> > What is the reason we are ignoring temporary slots here? I think we
> > better explain in the comments.
>
> The temporary slots were expressly ignored while checking because such slots
> cannot exist after the upgrade. Before doing pg_upgrade, both old and new cluster
> must be turned off, and they start/stop several times during the upgrade.
>
> How do you think?
LGTM
>
> > 2.
> > + res = executeQueryOrDie(conn, "SELECT slot_name "
> > + "FROM pg_catalog.pg_replication_slots "
> > + "WHERE slot_type = 'logical' AND "
> > + "temporary IS FALSE;");
> > +
> > + if (PQntuples(res))
> > + pg_fatal("New cluster must not have logical replication slots but
> > found \"%s\"",
> > + PQgetvalue(res, 0, 0));
> >
> > It looks a bit odd to me that first it is fetching all the logical
> > slots from the new cluster and then printing the name of one of the
> > slots. If it is printing the name of the slots then shouldn't it be
> > printing all the slots' names or it should just say that there
> > existing slots on the new cluster without giving any names? And if we
> > are planning for option 2 i.e. not printing the name then better to
> > put LIMIT 1 at the end of the query.
>
> I'm planning to change that the number of slots are reported by using count(*).
Yeah, that seems a better option.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-09-01 04:36:37 | Re: persist logical slots to disk during shutdown checkpoint |
Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2023-09-01 04:02:09 | Re: SQL:2011 application time |