RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
Subject RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node
Date
Msg-id TYAPR01MB58666034F67ACA9175AC1A39F5F9A@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dear Amit,

Thank you for reviewing! New version can be available in [1].

> 
> +{ oid => '8046', descr => 'for use by pg_upgrade',
> +  proname => 'binary_upgrade_validate_wal_records',
> +  prorows => '10', proretset => 't', provolatile => 's', prorettype => 'bool',
> +  proargtypes => 'pg_lsn', proallargtypes => '{pg_lsn,bool}',
> +  proargmodes => '{i,o}', proargnames => '{start_lsn,is_ok}',
> +  prosrc => 'binary_upgrade_validate_wal_records' },
> 
> In this many of the fields seem bogus. For example, we don't need
> prorows => '10', proretset => 't' for this function. Similarly
> proargmodes also look incorrect as we don't have any out parameter.
>

The part was made in old versions and has kept till now. I rechecked them and
changed like below:

* This function just returns boolean, proretset was changed to 'f'.
* Based on above, prorows should be zero. Removed.
* Returned value is quite depended on the internal status, provolatile was
  changed to 'v'.
* There are no OUT and INOUT arguments, no need to set proallargtypes and proargmodes.
  Removed.
* Anonymous arguments are allowed, proargnames was removed NULL.
* This function is not expected to be call in parallel. proparallel was set to 'u'.
* The argument must not be NULL, and we should error out. proisstrict was changed 'f'.
  Also, the check was added to the function.

[1]:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYAPR01MB586615579356A84A8CF29A00F5F9A%40TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com

Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory consumed by child SpecialJoinInfo in partitionwise join planning