Re: Impact of checkpointer during pg_upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Impact of checkpointer during pg_upgrade
Date
Msg-id ZPplsV6SHU2A+dPN@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Impact of checkpointer during pg_upgrade  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Impact of checkpointer during pg_upgrade
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 03:33:52PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think if we just make max_slot_wal_keep_size to -1 that should be
> sufficient to not let any slots get invalidated during upgrade. Do you
> have anything else in mind?

Forcing wal_keep_size while on it may be a good thing.

> If we do (b) either via GUCs or IsBinaryUpgrade check we don't need to
> do any of (a), (b), or (d). I feel that would be a minimal and
> sufficient fix to prevent any side impact of checkpointer on slots
> during an upgrade.

I could get into the addition of a post-upgrade check to make sure
that nothing got invalidated while the upgrade was running, FWIW.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jacob Champion
Date:
Subject: Re: Row pattern recognition
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Correct the documentation for work_mem