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

From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Peter Smith' <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node
Date: 2023-09-15 03:15:12
Message-ID: TYAPR01MB58667B1E8E0186F0639D708AF5F6A@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear Peter,

Thank you for reviewing! New patch is available in [1].

> 1.
> Configure the servers for log shipping. (You do not need to run
> <function>pg_backup_start()</function> and
> <function>pg_backup_stop()</function>
> or take a file system backup as the standbys are still synchronized
> - with the primary.) Replication slots are not copied and must
> - be recreated.
> + with the primary.) Only logical slots on the primary are copied to the
> + new standby, and other other slots on the old standby must be recreated
> + as they are not copied.
> </para>
>
> IMO this text still needs some minor changes like shown below, Anyway,
> there is a typo: /other other/
>
> SUGGESTION
> Only logical slots on the primary are copied to the new standby, but
> other slots on the old standby are not copied so must be recreated
> manually.
>

Fixed.

> ======
> src/bin/pg_upgrade/server.c
>
> 2.
> + *
> + * Use max_slot_wal_keep_size as -1 to prevent the WAL removal by the
> + * checkpointer process. If WALs required by logical replication slots are
> + * removed, the slots are unusable. The setting ensures that such WAL
> + * records have remained so that invalidation of slots would be avoided
> + * during the upgrade.
>
> The comment already explained the reason for the setting is to prevent
> removing the needed WAL records, so I felt there is no need for the
> last sentence to repeat the same information.
>
> BEFORE
> The setting ensures that such WAL records have remained so that
> invalidation of slots would be avoided during the upgrade.
>
> SUGGESTION
> This setting prevents the invalidation of slots during the upgrade.

Fixed.

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYAPR01MB5866D63A6460059DC661BF62F5F6A%40TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com

Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-09-15 05:20:59 Re: Have better wording for snapshot file reading failure
Previous Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2023-09-15 03:14:50 RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node