Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 01:56, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 8:15 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 10:56, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 04:30:49PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > I have made minor changes in the comments and code at various places.
> > > > See and let me know if you are not happy with the changes. I think
> > > > unless there are more suggestions or comments, we can proceed with
> > > > committing it.
> > >
> > > Yeah.  I am planning to look more closely at what you have here, and
> > > it is going to take me a bit more time though (some more stuff planned
> > > for next CF, an upcoming conference and end/beginning-of-year
> > > vacations), but I think that targetting the beginning of next CF in
> > > January would be OK.
> > >
> > > Overall, I have the impression that the patch looks pretty solid, with
> > > a restriction in place for "init" and "ready" relations, while there
> > > are tests to check all the states that we expect.  Seeing coverage
> > > about all that makes me a happy hacker.
> > >
> > > + * If retain_lock is true, then don't release the locks taken in this function.
> > > + * We normally release the locks at the end of transaction but in binary-upgrade
> > > + * mode, we expect to release those immediately.
> > >
> > > I think that this should be documented in pg_upgrade_support.c where
> > > the caller expects the locks to be released, and why these should be
> > > released.  There is a risk that this comment becomes obsolete if
> > > AddSubscriptionRelState() with locks released is called in a different
> > > code path.  Anyway, I am not sure to get why this is OK, or even
> > > necessary.  It seems like a good practice to keep the locks on the
> > > subscription until the transaction that updates its state.  If there's
> > > a specific reason explaining why that's better, the patch should tell
> > > why.
> >
> > Added comments for this.
> >
> > > +     * However, this shouldn't be a problem as the upgrade ensures
> > > +     * that all the transactions were replicated before upgrading the
> > > +     * publisher.
> > > This wording looks a bit confusing to me, as "the upgrade" could refer
> > > to the upgrade of a subscriber, but what we want to tell is that the
> > > replay of the transactions is enforced when doing a publisher upgrade.
> > > I'd suggest something like "the upgrade of the publisher ensures that
> > > all the transactions were replicated before upgrading it".
> >
> > Modified
> >
> > > +my $result = $old_sub->safe_psql('postgres',
> > > +   "SELECT count(1) = 1 FROM pg_subscription_rel WHERE srsubstate = 'i'");
> > > +is($result, qq(t), "Check that the table is in init state");
> > >
> > > Hmm.  Not sure that this is safe.  Shouldn't this be a
> > > poll_query_until(), polling that the state of the relation is what we
> > > want it to be after requesting a fresh of the publication on the
> > > subscriber?
> >
> > This is not required as the table will be added in init state after
> > "Alter Subscription ... Refresh .." command itself.
> >
> > Thanks for the comments, the attached v24 version patch has the
> > changes for the same.
>
> Thank you for updating the patch.
>
> Here are some minor comments:
>
> +        if (!SearchSysCacheExists1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(relid)))
> +                ereport(ERROR,
> +                                errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
> +                                errmsg("relation %u does not exist", relid));
> +
>
> I think the error code should be ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_TABLE, and the
> error message should be something like "relation with OID %u does not
> exist". Or we might not need such checks since an undefined-object
> error is caught by relation_open()?

I have removed this as it will be caught by relation_open.

> ---
> +        /* Fetch the existing tuple. */
> +        tup = SearchSysCache2(SUBSCRIPTIONNAME, MyDatabaseId,
> +                                                  CStringGetDatum(subname));
> +        if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tup))
> +                ereport(ERROR,
> +                                errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT),
> +                                errmsg("subscription \"%s\" does not
> exist", subname));
> +
> +        form = (Form_pg_subscription) GETSTRUCT(tup);
> +        subid = form->oid;

Modified

> The above code can be replaced with "get_subscription_oid(subname,
> false)". binary_upgrade_replorigin_advance() has the same code.

Modified

Thanks for the comments, the attached v25 version patch has the
changes for the same.

Regards,
Vignesh