On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:16 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:12 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 07:59:46AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > Do you mean to say that if 'IsBinaryUpgrade' is true then let's not > > > allow to launch launcher or apply worker? If so, I guess this won't be > > > any better than prohibiting at an early stage or explicitly overriding > > > those with internal values and documenting it, at least that way we > > > can be consistent for both variables (max_logical_replication_workers > > > and max_slot_wal_keep_size). > > > > Yes, I mean to paint an extra IsBinaryUpgrade before registering the > > apply worker launcher. That would be consistent with what we do for > > autovacuum in the postmaster. > > > > But then we don't need the hardcoded value of > max_logical_replication_workers as zero by pg_upgrade. I think doing > IsBinaryUpgrade for slots won't be neat, so we anyway need to keep > using the special value of max_slot_wal_keep_size GUC. Though the > handling for both won't be the same but I guess given the situation, > that seems like a reasonable thing to do. If we follow that then we > can have this special GUC hook only for max_slot_wal_keep_size GUC. >
Michael, Horiguchi-San, and others, do you have any thoughts on what is the best way to proceed? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
