On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 9:58 AM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:27 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) > <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > Yeah, the approach enforces developers to check the decodability. > > But the benefit seems smaller than required efforts for it because the > > function > > would be used only by pg_upgrade. Could you tell me if you have another use > > case > > in mind? We may able to adopt if we have... > > I'm attaching 0002 patch (on top of v45) which implements the new > decodable callback approach that I have in mind. IMO, this new > approach is extensible, better than the current approach (hard-coding > of certain WAL records that may be generated during pg_upgrade) taken > by the patch, and helps deal with the issue that custom WAL resource > managers can have with the current approach taken by the patch.
I did not see the patch, but I like this approach better. I mean this approach does not check what record types are generated during updagre instead this directly targets that after the confirmed_flush_lsn what type of records shouldn't be generated. So if rmgr says that after commit_flush_lsn no decodable record was generated then we are safe to upgrade that slot. So this seems an expandable approach. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
