On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 03:33:52PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > I think if we just make max_slot_wal_keep_size to -1 that should be > sufficient to not let any slots get invalidated during upgrade. Do you > have anything else in mind?
Forcing wal_keep_size while on it may be a good thing. > If we do (b) either via GUCs or IsBinaryUpgrade check we don't need to > do any of (a), (b), or (d). I feel that would be a minimal and > sufficient fix to prevent any side impact of checkpointer on slots > during an upgrade. I could get into the addition of a post-upgrade check to make sure that nothing got invalidated while the upgrade was running, FWIW. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
