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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication
Date
Msg-id ZREhkqGnhQLEU1RD@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: pg_upgrade and logical replication  ("Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>)
Responses RE: pg_upgrade and logical replication
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 05:35:18AM +0000, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Personally, I prefer to change max_logical_replication_workers. Mainly there are
> two reasons:
>
> 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.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ryoga Yoshida
Date:
Subject: Re: Doesn't pgstat_report_wal() handle the argument "force" incorrectly
Next
From: jian he
Date:
Subject: Re: Document efficient self-joins / UPDATE LIMIT techniques.