On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 10:10 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 09:14:59AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:00 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>> I > >>> mean that doing the latter is benefitial for the sake of any patch > >>> committed and > >>> as a long-term method to rely on. > > > > What is your worry here? Are you worried that unknowingly in the > > future we could add some other way to invalidate slots during upgrades > > that we won't be able to detect? > > Exactly. A safety belt would not hurt, especially if the belt added > is simple. The idea of a backend side elog(ERROR) with > isBinaryUpgrade is tempting in the invalidation slot path. >
I agree with doing something simple. So, to conclude, we agree on two things in this thread (a) Use max_slot_wal_keep_size to -1 to start postmaster for the old cluster during the upgrade; (b) Have an elog(ERROR) to avoid invalidating slots during the upgrade. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
