Re: Follow-up fixes for online wal_level change - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: Follow-up fixes for online wal_level change
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoBMtuUZ0=0MWtKeCxMFK5YBR8w0Y5JwtbhOr2QkhZPtDw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to RE: Follow-up fixes for online wal_level change  ("Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 2:42 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Sawada-san,
>
> > > I think that replaying the status change record itself is correct, as
> > > it reflects the status at the time the record was written. The problem
> > > is that the end-of-recovery code assumed that this cannot happen,
> > > instead of adjusting the status. Therefore, the fix removes the
> > > wal_level='minimal' special case from
> > > UpdateLogicalDecodingStatusEndOfRecovery() so that it recomputes the
> > > status as usual.
>
> Good catch. I could reproduce.
>
> I initially thought that we could just skip redoing for
> XLOG_LOGICAL_DECODING_STATUS_CHANGE records. I confirmed it could also solve the
> issue. Also, I think it could slightly reduce the redoing time because it does
> not have to emit/wait the ProcSignalBarrier. But your point is also valid:
> either way is fine for me.
>
> I reviewed your patches and I could not find issues.
>

Thank you for reviewing these patches.

I've just pushed both patches.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Sabino Mullane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_upgrade: add --initdb option to create the new cluster automatically
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: uuidv7 improperly accepts dates before 1970-01-01