Re: Patch for migration of the pg_commit_ts directory - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Patch for migration of the pg_commit_ts directory
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1KMuhaH=QgzJCwQgawuybosq-JMWWT9qSqyMZNV1MWjtg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to RE: Patch for migration of the pg_commit_ts directory  ("Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>)
Responses RE: Patch for migration of the pg_commit_ts directory
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 1:54 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> I found that v7 needs rebased. Copyright was also updated in the attached patch.
> I'm not the author of the patch though.
>

Can we update the use case of this patch in the commit message? One of
the use case I recall is to detect conflicts with accuracy after
upgrade. See docs [1] ("Commit timestamps and origin data are not
preserved during the upgrade. ..) I think this note needs an update
after this patch.

res = executeQueryOrDie(conn, "SELECT setting FROM pg_settings "
+ "WHERE name = 'track_commit_timestamp'");
+ track_commit_timestamp_on = strcmp(PQgetvalue(res, 0, 0), "on") == 0;

As this is a boolean variable, what if the user sets the value of this
GUC as true, will the above work correctly? Also, _on in the variable
name appears bit odd.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hüseyin Demir
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #19393: pg_upgrade fails with duplicate key violation when CHECK constraint named *_not_null exists
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: refactor architecture-specific popcount code