Re: [Patch]The Case For WAL-Logging pg_upgrade

From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bohyun Lee <bohyun(dot)lee(at)databricks(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Patch]The Case For WAL-Logging pg_upgrade
Date: 2026-08-01 00:31:08
Message-ID: CANWCAZZBgGeXLUy_Xk7LqMEfY_XMazbE+JZPK8Yzmmk1LEFiSA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 8:14 PM Bohyun Lee <bohyun(dot)lee(at)databricks(dot)com> wrote:
> The patch closes both gaps by atomically WAL-logging the after-images generated by pg_upgrade upon successful completion. The upgrade becomes part of the WAL stream and can be propagated to standbys through standard streaming replication, eliminating the need for offline rsync-based resynchronization.

This is an interesting proposal. I think a new RMGR that ships a
filesystem transformation through the WAL stream might be a difficult
sell. It's different in that the system must know what file paths to
stick into the WAL stream to get the desired result. It also changes a
lot of the backend to support new capabilities in a frontend tool. If
we're changing this much in the tree, we have other options to arrange
for normal WAL to physically propagate the primary's changes, since
that's a desireable feature. Coincidentally, I've been prototyping
ideas lately as well.

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Japin Li 2026-08-01 01:44:02 Re: WAL compression setting after PostgreSQL LZ4 default change
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2026-07-31 23:15:36 Re: CREATE SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER vs. pg_dump, etc.