| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'vignesh C' <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: pg_upgrade's interaction with pg_resetwal seems confusing |
| Date: | 2023-10-23 05:36:04 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB5866A740946DC15DC5596383F5D8A@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Vignesh,
Thank you for reviewing! New patch can be available in [1].
> We can update the commit message with the details of the same, it will
> help to understand that it is intentionally done.
Both comments and a commit message were updated related.
> There are couple of typos with the new patch:
> 1) "uprade logical replication slot" should be "upgrade logical
> replication slot":
> Previously, the OID counter is restored by invoking pg_resetwal with the -o
> option, at the end of upgrade. This is not problematic for now, but WAL removals
> are not happy if we want to uprade logical replication slot. Therefore, a new
> upgrade function is introduced to reset next OID.
Fixed.
> 2) "becasue the value" should be "because the value":
> Note that we only update the on-memory data to avoid concurrent update of
> control with the chekpointer. It is harmless becasue the value would be set at
> shutdown checkpoint.
Fixed.
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2023-10-23 05:39:59 | RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node |
| Previous Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2023-10-23 05:34:55 | RE: pg_upgrade's interaction with pg_resetwal seems confusing |