From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |
Date: | 2025-07-09 11:59:28 |
Message-ID: | 202507091159.4ml27tcusrvz@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-Jul-09, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:07 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > After further consideration, I believe your proposed method is
> > superior to forcing the max_slot_wal_keep_size to -1 via a check hook.
> > The ultimate goal is to prevent WAL removal during a binary upgrade,
> > and your approach directly addresses this issue rather than
> > controlling it by forcing the GUC value. I am planning to send a
> > patch using this approach for both max_slot_wal_keep_size as well as
> > for idle_replication_slot_timeout.
>
> PFA, with this approach.
This indeed makes the whole thing a lot simpler and more direct than the
original code, and solves this subthread's complaint. It's a bit weird
that slot.c and xlog.c now have to worry about IsBinaryUpgrade, but I
don't feel any guilt about that.
I propose a few comment updates on top of your patch.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Oh, great altar of passive entertainment, bestow upon me thy discordant images
at such speed as to render linear thought impossible" (Calvin a la TV)
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
comments.patch.txt | text/plain | 1.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-07-09 12:08:58 | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-07-09 11:42:42 | Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects |