Re: pg_upgrade: optimize replication slot caught-up check

From: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade: optimize replication slot caught-up check
Date: 2026-01-30 05:25:41
Message-ID: CAJpy0uAiv9Ozx+J_5w9TSzD22v7o8r8UginYdKjE1rqpNZ8ARg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 10:01 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 9:45 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 2:15 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 10:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 2:06 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I missed fixing one place. Attached the new version.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > One question/comment on following change:
> > > > + bool use_fast_caught_up_check;
> > > > +
> > > > + logical_slot_infos_query = get_old_cluster_logical_slot_infos_query(cluster,
> > > > + &use_fast_caught_up_check);
> > > > +
> > > > upgrade_task_add_step(task,
> > > > logical_slot_infos_query,
> > > > process_old_cluster_logical_slot_infos,
> > > > true, NULL);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Check whether slots have consumed all WAL records efficiently by
> > > > + * using another query, if not during a live_check.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (use_fast_caught_up_check && !user_opts.live_check)
> > > > + {
> > > >
> > > > Won't this lead to two steps to set caught_up for slots in PG19 and
> > > > following versions? If so, is it possible to use just one step even
> > > > for PG19 and following versions?
> > >
> > > Yes, it seems like a good simplification. I've updated the patch accordingly.
> > >
> >
> > At first glance it looks like a simplification, but on closer look, it
> > actually makes the code harder to follow and more prone to errors if
> > someone modifies it in the future.
> >
>
> I think that is primarily because of the way code is arranged by the
> patch. I think it would be better to construct a complete query
> separately for fast and non-fast checks. There will be some repeated
> parts but the chances of mistakes will be less and it would be easier
> to follow.
>

+1

> One minor point:
> * Fetch the logical replication slot information. The check whether the
> - * slot is considered caught up is done by an upgrade function. This
> - * regards the slot as caught up if we don't find any decodable changes.
> - * See binary_upgrade_logical_slot_has_caught_up().
> + * slot is considered caught up is done by an upgrade function, unless the
> + * fast check is available on the cluster.
>
> Isn't the caught up check done by an upgrade function both for fast
> and non-fast cases? If so, this comment needs to be improved to make
> it clear.
>
> --
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Corey Huinker 2026-01-30 05:28:03 Re: Optional skipping of unchanged relations during ANALYZE?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-01-30 05:13:37 Re: A out of date comment of WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable