RE: A recent message added to pg_upgade

From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Bharath Rupireddy' <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: A recent message added to pg_upgade
Date: 2023-10-30 09:03:24
Message-ID: TYAPR01MB58660A2306ADD9745C81E30FF5A1A@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear Bharath,

> Will the check_hook approach work correctly?

I tested by using the first version and worked well (rejected). Please see the
log which recorded the output and log. Below lines were copied from server
log and found that max_slot_wal_keep_size must not be >= 0.

```
waiting for server to start....2023-10-30 08:53:32.529 GMT [6903] FATAL: invalid value for parameter "max_slot_wal_keep_size": 1
stopped waiting
pg_ctl: could not start serve
```

> I haven't checked that by
> myself, but I see InitializeGUCOptions() getting called before
> IsBinaryUpgrade is set to true and the passed-in config options ('c')
> are parsed.

I thought the key point was that user-defined options are aligned after the "-b".
User-defined options are set after the '-b' option, so check_hook could work
as we expected. Thought?

Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED

Attachment Content-Type Size
output.txt text/plain 1022 bytes
pg_upgrade_server.log application/octet-stream 791 bytes

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ryo Matsumura (Fujitsu) 2023-10-30 09:04:00 RE: PATCH: document for regression test forgets libpq test
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2023-10-30 09:01:56 Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade