Re: Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade
Date: 2017-06-12 00:03:28
Message-ID: 9761.1497225808@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> I believe I've identified the reason why skink and some other buildfarm
> members have been failing the pg_upgrade test recently.
> ...
> Not sure what we want to do about it. One idea is to make
> ALTER SEQUENCE not so transactional when in binary-upgrade mode.

On closer inspection, the only thing that pg_upgrade needs is to be
able to do ALTER SEQUENCE OWNED BY without a relfilenode bump. PFA
two versions of a patch that fixes this problem, at least to the
extent that it gets through check-world without triggering the Assert
I added to GetNewRelFileNode (which HEAD doesn't). The first one
is a minimally-invasive hack; the second one puts the responsibility
for deciding if a sequence rewrite is needed into init_params. That's
bulkier but might be useful if we ever grow additional ALTER SEQUENCE
options that don't need a rewrite. OTOH, I'm not very clear on what
such options might look like, so maybe the extra flexibility is useless.
Thoughts?

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix-sequence-upgrade-v1.patch text/x-diff 2.4 KB
fix-sequence-upgrade-v2.patch text/x-diff 9.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mithun Cy 2017-06-12 01:01:19 Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-06-11 23:39:40 Re: TPC-H Q20 from 1 hour to 19 hours!