From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | jorsol(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #18979: pg_upgrade to PG17 fails if max_slot_wal_keep_size is not set to -1 |
Date: | 2025-07-06 17:53:54 |
Message-ID: | 215701.1751824434@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 8:26 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> However, maybe instead of having check_max_slot_wal_keep_size
>> throw an error about this, we could make it just silently keep
>> the value as -1.
> Can't we just move this to postmaster.c ~ line 850 ?
max_slot_wal_keep_size is marked PGC_SIGHUP, so in principle it
could be changed after postmaster start. So if we want a server-side
defense, I don't believe checking at postmaster start is adequate.
In practice, as long as pg_upgrade provides that -c switch, I don't
believe any other GUC source that is allowed to set a PGC_SIGHUP
GUC would override the -c switch. So the need for any server-side
defense isn't obvious to me.
> This seems no different than wal_level and summarize_wal having a
> co-dependency such that intermediate invalid states must be allowed to
> exist so long as what the server ends up running under is valid.
I think that code doesn't do what its author hoped :-(
Anyway, I found the thread for commit 8bfb231b4 which installed
this code [1], and I'm going to go complain there.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yura Sokolov | 2025-07-07 10:02:45 | Re: BUG #18801: JIT recompiles function for each row if custom aggregation function is used |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-07-06 16:47:04 | Re: BUG #18979: pg_upgrade to PG17 fails if max_slot_wal_keep_size is not set to -1 |