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

From Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
Subject RE: pg_upgrade and logical replication
Date
Msg-id TYAPR01MB5866AA6A1D0E936B311A0827F5C3A@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dear Michael,

> > 1. Your approach must be back-patched to older versions which support logical
> >    replication feature, but the oldest one (PG10) has already been
> unsupported.
> >    We should not modify such a branch.
>
> This suggestion would be only for HEAD as it changes the behavior of -b.
>
> > 2. Also, "max_logical_replication_workers = 0" approach would be consistent
> >    with what we are doing now and for upgrade of publisher patch.
> >    Please see the previous discussion [1].
>
> Yeah, you're right.  Consistency would be good across the board, and
> we'd need to take care of the old clusters as well, so the GUC
> enforcement would be needed as well.  It does not strike me that this
> extra IsBinaryUpgrade would hurt anyway?  Forcing the hand of the
> backend has the merit of allowing the removal of the tweak with
> max_logical_replication_workers at some point in the future.

Hmm, our initial motivation is to suppress registering the launcher, and adding
a GUC setting is sufficient for it. Indeed, registering a launcher may be harmful,
but it seems not the goal of this thread (changing -b workflow in HEAD is not
sufficient alone for the issue). I'm not sure it should be included in patch sets
here.

Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoid a possible out-of-bounds access (src/backend/optimizer/util/relnode.c)
Next
From: Andrey Lepikhov
Date:
Subject: Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization