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: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 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>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Impact of checkpointer during pg_upgrade
Date: 2023-09-08 06:38:12
Message-ID: ZPrBVI4P1DF023tn@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 11:59:41AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I agree with doing something simple. So, to conclude, we agree on two
> things in this thread (a) Use max_slot_wal_keep_size to -1 to start
> postmaster for the old cluster during the upgrade; (b) Have an
> elog(ERROR) to avoid invalidating slots during the upgrade.

+1.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2023-09-08 06:59:33 Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2023-09-08 06:29:41 Re: Impact of checkpointer during pg_upgrade