Re: pg_upgrade version checking questions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: pg_upgrade version checking questions
Date
Msg-id A378B36C-A948-43E3-9714-6605979F6CB6@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade version checking questions  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade version checking questions
Re: pg_upgrade version checking questions
List pgsql-hackers
> On 27 Jul 2019, at 08:42, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> I have committed 0002, 0003, and 0004.

Thanks!

> The implementation in 0001 (Only allow upgrades by the same exact
> version new bindir) has a problem.  It compares (new_cluster.bin_version
> != PG_VERSION_NUM), but new_cluster.bin_version is actually just the
> version of pg_ctl, so this is just comparing the version of pg_upgrade
> with the version of pg_ctl, which is not wrong, but doesn't really
> achieve the full goal of having all binaries match.

Right, it seemed the cleanest option at the time more or less based on the
issues outlined below.

> I think a better structure would be to add a version check for each
> validate_exec() so that each program is checked against pg_upgrade.
> This should mirror what find_other_exec() in src/common/exec.c does.  In
> a better world we would use find_other_exec() directly, but then we
> can't support -B.  Maybe expand find_other_exec() to support this, or
> make a private copy for pg_upgrade to support this.  (Also, we have two
> copies of validate_exec() around.  Maybe this could all be unified.)

I’ll take a stab at tidying all of this up to require less duplication, we’ll
see where that ends up.

cheers ./daniel


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel grouping sets
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch to document base64 encoding