Re: [PATCH] Preserve replication origin OIDs in pg_upgrade

From: Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rui Zhao <zhaorui126(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(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: 2026-09-28 12:20:33
Message-ID: CAFPTHDawR7GQ_fSYkGwTBsS_7vzEY=mzQeUEJTC=bWRp97QVRA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 3:55 PM Rui Zhao <zhaorui126(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ajin,
>
> v17 applies to master (db2d99323f), builds warning-free, make check 245/245,
> pg_upgrade TAP 149/149. The two upgrades from my last mail still pass, and
> all three points from it are in.
>
> On the commit message: it says commit-timestamp records "are copied
> directly from the old cluster's pg_commit_ts directory", but the copying is
> still the pg_commit_ts migration thread's patch -- so "will be copied"
> would be the accurate tense.
>
> Typo in the comment that replaced the "distinglish" one, at origin.c:309:
> "a status row that exists with remote_ls = 0/0" -> remote_lsn.
>
> Everything else looks good to me.

Addressed these comments and also rebased the patch.

regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia

Attachment Content-Type Size
v18-0001-Preserve-subscription-OIDs-during-pg_upgrade.patch application/octet-stream 9.6 KB
v18-0002-Preserve-replication-origin-OIDs-during-pg_upgra.patch application/octet-stream 40.5 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ayush Tiwari 2026-09-28 12:21:08 Re: [PATCH] Table sync race with REFRESH PUBLICATION
Previous Message vignesh C 2026-09-28 12:20:25 Re: Logical replication can lose an update after concurrent index invalidation