On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 3:46 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 1:06 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 12:42:33PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 11:29 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Unless I'm missing something I don't see what prevents something to > > > > connect > > > > using the replication protocol and issue any query or even create new > > > > replication slots? > > > > > > > > > > I think the point is that if we have any slots where we have not > > > consumed the pending WAL (other than the expected like > > > SHUTDOWN_CHECKPOINT) or if there are invalid slots then the upgrade > > > won't proceed and we will request user to remove such slots or ensure > > > that WAL is consumed by slots. So, I think in the case you mentioned, > > > the upgrade won't succeed. > > > > What if new slots are added while the old instance is started in the middle > > of > > pg_upgrade, *after* the various checks are done? > > > > They won't be copied but I think that won't be any different than > other objects like tables. Anyway, I have another idea which is to not > allow creating slots during binary upgrade unless one specifically > requests it by having an API like binary_upgrade_allow_slot_create() > similar to existing APIs binary_upgrade_*. >
Sawada-San, Julien, and others, do you have any thoughts on the above point? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
