Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication
Дата
Msg-id ZW60c-tpTNB5noL8@paquier.xyz
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 04:30:49PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I have made minor changes in the comments and code at various places.
> See and let me know if you are not happy with the changes. I think
> unless there are more suggestions or comments, we can proceed with
> committing it.

Yeah.  I am planning to look more closely at what you have here, and
it is going to take me a bit more time though (some more stuff planned
for next CF, an upcoming conference and end/beginning-of-year
vacations), but I think that targetting the beginning of next CF in
January would be OK.

Overall, I have the impression that the patch looks pretty solid, with
a restriction in place for "init" and "ready" relations, while there
are tests to check all the states that we expect.  Seeing coverage
about all that makes me a happy hacker.

+ * If retain_lock is true, then don't release the locks taken in this function.
+ * We normally release the locks at the end of transaction but in binary-upgrade
+ * mode, we expect to release those immediately.

I think that this should be documented in pg_upgrade_support.c where
the caller expects the locks to be released, and why these should be
released.  There is a risk that this comment becomes obsolete if
AddSubscriptionRelState() with locks released is called in a different
code path.  Anyway, I am not sure to get why this is OK, or even
necessary.  It seems like a good practice to keep the locks on the
subscription until the transaction that updates its state.  If there's
a specific reason explaining why that's better, the patch should tell
why.

+     * However, this shouldn't be a problem as the upgrade ensures
+     * that all the transactions were replicated before upgrading the
+     * publisher.

This wording looks a bit confusing to me, as "the upgrade" could refer
to the upgrade of a subscriber, but what we want to tell is that the
replay of the transactions is enforced when doing a publisher upgrade.
I'd suggest something like "the upgrade of the publisher ensures that
all the transactions were replicated before upgrading it".

+my $result = $old_sub->safe_psql('postgres',
+   "SELECT count(1) = 1 FROM pg_subscription_rel WHERE srsubstate = 'i'");
+is($result, qq(t), "Check that the table is in init state");

Hmm.  Not sure that this is safe.  Shouldn't this be a
poll_query_until(), polling that the state of the relation is what we
want it to be after requesting a fresh of the publication on the
subscriber?
--
Michael

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Shubham Khanna
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [DOCS] HOT - correct claim about indexes not referencing old line pointers
Следующее
От: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Дата:
Сообщение: RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node