On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:15 AM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:11 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Yeah, both by tests and manually verifying the WAL records. Basically, > > we need to care about records that could be generated by background > > processes like checkpointer/bgwriter or can be generated during system > > table scans. You may want to read my latest email for a summary on how > > we reached at this design choice [1]. > > > > [1] - > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JVKZGRHLOEotWi%2Be%2B09jucNedqpkkc-Do4dh5FTAU%2B5w%40mail.gmail.com > > + /* Logical slots can be migrated since PG17. */ > + if (GET_MAJOR_VERSION(old_cluster.major_version) <= 1600) > + { > > Why can't the patch allow migration of logical replication slots from > PG versions < 17 to say 17 or later? If done, it will be a main > advantage of the patch since it will enable seamless major version > upgrades of postgres database instances with logical replication > slots. > > I'm looking at the changes to the postgres backend that this patch > does - AFICS, it does 2 things 1) implements > binary_upgrade_validate_wal_logical_end function, 2) adds an assertion > that the logical slots won't get invalidated. For (1), pg_upgrade can > itself can read the WAL from the old cluster to determine the logical > WAL end (i.e. implement the functionality of > binary_upgrade_validate_wal_logical_end ) because the xlogreader is > available to FRONTEND tools. For (2), it's just an assertion and > logical WAL end determining logic will anyway determine whether or not > the slots are valid; if needed, the assertion can be backported. > > Is there anything else that stops this patch from supporting migration > of logical replication slots from PG versions < 17?
IMHO one of the main change we are doing in PG 17 is that on shutdown checkpoint we are ensuring that if the confirmed flush lsn is updated since the last checkpoint and that is not yet synched to the disk then we are doing so. I think this is the most important change otherwise many slots for which we have already streamed all the WAL might give an error assuming that there are pending WAL from the slots which are not yet confirmed. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
