| From: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rui Zhao <zhaorui126(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Preserve replication origin OIDs in pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2026-07-27 10:46:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAFPTHDYKt+irC-UfhVghTkH04-Hm6jifw2KfiNNvafVuXm-nDw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 1:21 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 9:03 PM Rui Zhao <zhaorui126(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > So if the skip stays as it is, the count should follow it -- counting only
> > status rows whose remote_lsn is non-zero. If instead it goes back to advancing
> > unconditionally, the two line up on their own and the check needs no change.
> > Either is fine by me; it's the pair being out of step that seemed worth
> > mentioning while that behaviour is still being decided.
> >
>
> Okay, I see your point. In that case, I think we should track the
> origin with lsn = 0x0 rather than skip it. To me, this seems more
> understandable than counting only the status rows whose remote_lsn is
> non-zero.
Updated the patch accordingly, also fixed the few documentation
errors. Attaching v14
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v14-0001-Preserve-subscription-OIDs-during-pg_upgrade.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.4 KB |
| v14-0002-Preserve-replication-origin-OIDs-during-pg_upgra.patch | application/octet-stream | 38.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Xuneng Zhou | 2026-07-27 11:03:05 | Re: Implement waiting for wal lsn replay: reloaded |
| Previous Message | Tender Wang | 2026-07-27 10:41:19 | Re: Partition pruning can incorrectly exclude a RANGE default partition |