Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node

From: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node
Date: 2023-10-20 03:24:23
Message-ID: CALDaNm06js8MW9pgRaJkbmCBLwCoKqLyNUbqXEd4vCKV-QoLdA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 16:16, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Dear Vignesh,
>
> Thanks for revieing! New patch can be available in [1].
>
> > Few comments:
> > 1) Even if we comment 3rd point "Emit a non-transactional message",
> > test_slot2 still appears in the invalid_logical_replication_slots.txt
> > file. There is something wrong here.
> > + # 2. Advance the slot test_slot2 up to the current WAL location, but
> > + # test_slot1 still has unconsumed WAL records.
> > + $old_publisher->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "SELECT pg_replication_slot_advance('test_slot2', NULL);");
> > +
> > + # 3. Emit a non-transactional message. test_slot2 detects the message
> > so
> > + # that this slot will be also reported by upcoming pg_upgrade.
> > + $old_publisher->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "SELECT count(*) FROM pg_logical_emit_message('false',
> > 'prefix', 'This is a non-transactional message');"
> > + );
>
> The comment was updated based on others. How do you think?

I mean if we comment or remove this statement like in the attached
patch, the test is still passing with 'The slot "test_slot2" has not
consumed the WAL yet', in this case should the test_slot2 be still
invalid as we have called pg_replication_slot_advance for test_slot2.

Regards,
Vignesh

Attachment Content-Type Size
test_issue.patch text/x-patch 646 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shveta malik 2023-10-20 03:27:10 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2023-10-20 03:20:59 Re: Patch: Improve Boolean Predicate JSON Path Docs