Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1J6HUamzV1PgNCA7uSexa3aL+K+09Po-TGw=8XaKgdLaA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:12 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 07:59:46AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Do you mean to say that if 'IsBinaryUpgrade' is true then let's not > > allow to launch launcher or apply worker? If so, I guess this won't be > > any better than prohibiting at an early stage or explicitly overriding > > those with internal values and documenting it, at least that way we > > can be consistent for both variables (max_logical_replication_workers > > and max_slot_wal_keep_size). > > Yes, I mean to paint an extra IsBinaryUpgrade before registering the > apply worker launcher. That would be consistent with what we do for > autovacuum in the postmaster. > But then we don't need the hardcoded value of max_logical_replication_workers as zero by pg_upgrade. I think doing IsBinaryUpgrade for slots won't be neat, so we anyway need to keep using the special value of max_slot_wal_keep_size GUC. Though the handling for both won't be the same but I guess given the situation, that seems like a reasonable thing to do. If we follow that then we can have this special GUC hook only for max_slot_wal_keep_size GUC. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: