Hi, here are my code review comments for the patch v32-0002
======
src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c
1. check_new_cluster_logical_replication_slots
+ res = executeQueryOrDie(conn, "SHOW max_replication_slots;");
+ max_replication_slots = atoi(PQgetvalue(res, 0, 0));
+
+ if (PQntuples(res) != 1)
+ pg_fatal("could not determine max_replication_slots");
Shouldn't the PQntuples check be *before* the PQgetvalue and
assignment to max_replication_slots?
~~~
2. check_new_cluster_logical_replication_slots
+ res = executeQueryOrDie(conn, "SHOW wal_level;");
+ wal_level = PQgetvalue(res, 0, 0);
+
+ if (PQntuples(res) != 1)
+ pg_fatal("could not determine wal_level");
Shouldn't the PQntuples check be *before* the PQgetvalue and
assignment to wal_level?
~~~
3. check_old_cluster_for_valid_slots
I saw that similar code with scripts like this is doing PG_REPORT:
pg_log(PG_REPORT, "fatal");
but that PG_REPORT is missing from this function.
======
src/bin/pg_upgrade/function.c
4. get_loadable_libraries
@@ -42,11 +43,12 @@ library_name_compare(const void *p1, const void *p2)
((const LibraryInfo *) p2)->dbnum;
}
-
/*
* get_loadable_libraries()
~
Removing that blank line (above this function) should not be included
in the patch.
~~~
5. get_loadable_libraries
+ /*
+ * Allocate a memory for extensions and logical replication output
+ * plugins.
+ */
+ os_info.libraries = pg_malloc_array(LibraryInfo,
+ totaltups + count_old_cluster_logical_slots());
/Allocate a memory/Allocate memory/
~~~
6. get_loadable_libraries
+ /*
+ * Store the name of output plugins as well. There is a possibility
+ * that duplicated plugins are set, but the consumer function
+ * check_loadable_libraries() will avoid checking the same library, so
+ * we do not have to consider their uniqueness here.
+ */
+ for (slotno = 0; slotno < slot_arr->nslots; slotno++)
/Store the name/Store the names/
======
src/bin/pg_upgrade/info.c
7. get_old_cluster_logical_slot_infos
+ i_slotname = PQfnumber(res, "slot_name");
+ i_plugin = PQfnumber(res, "plugin");
+ i_twophase = PQfnumber(res, "two_phase");
+ i_caughtup = PQfnumber(res, "caughtup");
+ i_conflicting = PQfnumber(res, "conflicting");
+
+ for (slotnum = 0; slotnum < num_slots; slotnum++)
+ {
+ LogicalSlotInfo *curr = &slotinfos[slotnum];
+
+ curr->slotname = pg_strdup(PQgetvalue(res, slotnum, i_slotname));
+ curr->plugin = pg_strdup(PQgetvalue(res, slotnum, i_plugin));
+ curr->two_phase = (strcmp(PQgetvalue(res, slotnum, i_twophase), "t") == 0);
+ curr->caughtup = (strcmp(PQgetvalue(res, slotnum, i_caughtup), "t") == 0);
+ curr->conflicting = (strcmp(PQgetvalue(res, slotnum, i_conflicting),
"t") == 0);
+ }
Saying "tup" always looks like it should be something tuple-related.
IMO it will be better to call all these "caught_up" instead of
"caughtup":
"caughtup" ==> "caught_up"
i_caughtup ==> i_caught_up
curr->caughtup ==> curr->caught_up
~~~
8. print_slot_infos
+static void
+print_slot_infos(LogicalSlotInfoArr *slot_arr)
+{
+ int slotnum;
+
+ if (slot_arr->nslots > 1)
+ pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "Logical replication slots within the database:");
+
+ for (slotnum = 0; slotnum < slot_arr->nslots; slotnum++)
+ {
+ LogicalSlotInfo *slot_info = &slot_arr->slots[slotnum];
+
+ pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "slotname: \"%s\", plugin: \"%s\", two_phase: %d",
+ slot_info->slotname,
+ slot_info->plugin,
+ slot_info->two_phase);
+ }
+}
Although it makes no functional difference, it might be neater if the
for loop is also within that "if (slot_arr->nslots > 1)" condition.
======
src/bin/pg_upgrade/pg_upgrade.h
9.
+/*
+ * Structure to store logical replication slot information
+ */
+typedef struct
+{
+ char *slotname; /* slot name */
+ char *plugin; /* plugin */
+ bool two_phase; /* can the slot decode 2PC? */
+ bool caughtup; /* Is confirmed_flush_lsn the same as latest
+ * checkpoint LSN? */
+ bool conflicting; /* Is the slot usable? */
+} LogicalSlotInfo;
9a.
+ bool caughtup; /* Is confirmed_flush_lsn the same as latest
+ * checkpoint LSN? */
caughtup ==> caught_up
~
9b.
+ bool conflicting; /* Is the slot usable? */
The field name has the opposite meaning of the wording of the comment.
(e.g. it is usable when it is NOT conflicting, right?).
Maybe there needs a better field name, or a better comment, or both.
AFAICT from other code pg_fatal message 'conflicting' is always
interpreted as 'lost' so maybe the field should be called that?
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
