| From: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rui Zhao <zhaorui126(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Preserve replication origin OIDs in pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2026-06-24 05:21:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAJpy0uCkdF7JtVL_TcbQZkXOZm_-Ez8cxepqTztcAF8zdbUZKw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 10:39 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> 2)
> replorigin_create_with_id():
>
> + if (SearchSysCacheExists1(REPLORIGNAME, roname_d))
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_OBJECT),
> + errmsg("replication origin \"%s\" already exists", roname));
>
> Can this ever happen? IIUC, since new-cluster should not have any
> origin (as per the check introduced) and old cluster can not have
> duplicate names, we should not hit this error. Do we want to keep it
> as sanity check? If so, can we put a comment atop it.
>
Analyzed a bit more, with this change in patch002, we see an error change:
Without patch:
postgres=# SELECT pg_replication_origin_create('abcd');
pg_replication_origin_create
------------------------------
1
postgres=# SELECT pg_replication_origin_create('abcd');
ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint
"pg_replication_origin_roname_index"
DETAIL: Key (roname)=(abcd) already exists.
----
With patch:
postgres=# SELECT pg_replication_origin_create('abcd');
pg_replication_origin_create
------------------------------
1
postgres=# SELECT pg_replication_origin_create('abcd');
ERROR: replication origin "abcd" already exists
So without the new check also, we can prevent duplicate name insertion
(even if that happens during upgrade, which I can not see how). The
new error and the check is not wrong, but slightly redundant. Or let
me know if I am missing something.
thanks
Shveta
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2026-06-24 05:31:12 | Re: Add pg_stat_kind_info system view |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2026-06-24 05:12:30 | Re: Row pattern recognition |