Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 5:29 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jul-09, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:07 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > After further consideration, I believe your proposed method is
> > > superior to forcing the max_slot_wal_keep_size to -1 via a check hook.
> > > The ultimate goal is to prevent WAL removal during a binary upgrade,
> > > and your approach directly addresses this issue rather than
> > > controlling it by forcing the GUC value.  I am planning to send a
> > > patch using this approach for both max_slot_wal_keep_size as well as
> > > for idle_replication_slot_timeout.
> >
> > PFA, with this approach.
>
> This indeed makes the whole thing a lot simpler and more direct than the
> original code, and solves this subthread's complaint.  It's a bit weird
> that slot.c and xlog.c now have to worry about IsBinaryUpgrade, but I
> don't feel any guilt about that.

Thanks Alvaro for having a look.

> I propose a few comment updates on top of your patch.

This comment updates LGTM, so included in v3.


--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google