Re: Impact of checkpointer during pg_upgrade

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰 <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Impact of checkpointer during pg_upgrade
Date: 2023-09-08 00:07:13
Message-ID: ZPplsV6SHU2A+dPN@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 03:33:52PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think if we just make max_slot_wal_keep_size to -1 that should be
> sufficient to not let any slots get invalidated during upgrade. Do you
> have anything else in mind?

Forcing wal_keep_size while on it may be a good thing.

> If we do (b) either via GUCs or IsBinaryUpgrade check we don't need to
> do any of (a), (b), or (d). I feel that would be a minimal and
> sufficient fix to prevent any side impact of checkpointer on slots
> during an upgrade.

I could get into the addition of a post-upgrade check to make sure
that nothing got invalidated while the upgrade was running, FWIW.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2023-09-08 00:16:21 Re: Correct the documentation for work_mem
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2023-09-08 00:00:07 Re: Row pattern recognition