Re: BUG #18979: pg_upgrade to PG17 fails if max_slot_wal_keep_size is not set to -1 - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: BUG #18979: pg_upgrade to PG17 fails if max_slot_wal_keep_size is not set to -1
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwZEB8F3mEymwuTJidLvQ9E1ZzUZEJQzOjP8KKFnLMSemw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #18979: pg_upgrade to PG17 fails if max_slot_wal_keep_size is not set to -1  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 9:41 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
Can't we just move this to postmaster.c ~ line 850 ?

This seems no different than wal_level and summarize_wal having a co-dependency such that intermediate invalid states must be allowed to exist so long as what the server ends up running under is valid.  max_slot_wal_keep_size is sighup just like summarize_wal (and IsBinaryUpgrade behaves like a postmaster GUC)


I suppose the answer is because sighup settings seemingly do not belong here...

./psql postgres
psql (18beta1)
Type "help" for help.

postgres=# show summarize_wal;
 summarize_wal
---------------
 on
(1 row)

postgres=# show wal_level;
 wal_level
-----------
 minimal
(1 row)

Which is an impossible combination to begin in but is allowed if you change only sumamrize_wal to on and perform a reload.

David J.

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #18979: pg_upgrade to PG17 fails if max_slot_wal_keep_size is not set to -1
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #18979: pg_upgrade to PG17 fails if max_slot_wal_keep_size is not set to -1