| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com |
| Cc: | amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |
| Date: | 2023-10-30 07:46:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20231030.164642.1883629565907764038.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 30 Oct 2023 03:36:41 +0000, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote in
> Thanks for the diff and I think the approach basically works.
>
> One notable behavior of this approach it will reject the GUC setting even if there
> are no slots on old cluster or user set the value to a big enough value which
> doesn't cause invalidation. The behavior doesn't look bad to me but just mention it
> for reference.
Indeed. pg_upgrade anyway sets the variable to -1 irrespective of the
slot's existence, and I see no justification for allowing users to
forcibly change it.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2023-10-30 07:55:58 | Re: A performance issue with Memoize |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-10-30 07:40:45 | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |