On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 11:59 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
+1 -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
