From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 12:44:38 +0900
Message-ID: <ZROlJo8p2ACv5HmD@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1+QV_qsUUef1bsOTE3AeB6jEdCspJhT4QCsVkHjudEC-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALDaNm1ZrbHaWpJwwNhDTJocRKWd3rEkgJazuDdZ9Z-WdvonFg@mail.gmail.com>
<TYAPR01MB5866F1BA00D86EA7EA134348F5F1A@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CALDaNm1JzqTreCUrhNu5E1gq7Q8r_u3+FrisyT7moOED=UdoCg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1+J0Ki74WScoTC4mJSYn4mSOhgrRFcFMQ_OCV0bfXjWVg@mail.gmail.com>
<ZQt7ixloBQbl0FZF@paquier.xyz>
<CAA4eK1+b+hZLKhehCU-=MuYrxzniKkytUR+7nWhBV2RnoBx91w@mail.gmail.com>
<ZQzMbWtE8S5LUjIZ@paquier.xyz>
<CAA4eK1KTV4UXhwfe-hPSwccdWKBu1+QVh-whJLomW1bdhV8jYQ@mail.gmail.com>
<ZRElFZSb_0clJiLG@paquier.xyz>
<CAA4eK1+QV_qsUUef1bsOTE3AeB6jEdCspJhT4QCsVkHjudEC-A@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 09:40:48AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:43 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> Sure, that's assuming that the publisher side is upgraded.
>
> At some point, user needs to upgrade publisher and subscriber could
> itself have some publications defined which means the downstream
> subscribers will have the same problem.
Not always. I take it as a valid case that one may want to create a
logical setup only for the sake of an upgrade, and trashes the
publisher after a failover to an upgraded subscriber node after the
latter has done a sync up of the data that's been added to the
relations tracked by the publications while the subscriber was
pg_upgrade'd.
>>> This is the primary reason why I prioritized to work on the publisher
>>> side before getting this patch done, otherwise, the solution for this
>>> patch was relatively clear. I am not sure but I guess this could be
>>> the reason why originally we left it in the current state, otherwise,
>>> restoring subscription rel's or origin doesn't seem to be too much of
>>> an additional effort than what we are doing now.
>>
>> By "additional effort", you are referring to what the patch is doing,
>> with the binary dump of pg_subscription_rel, right?
>>
>
> Yes.
Okay. I'd like to move on with this stuff, then. At least it helps
in maintaining data integrity when doing an upgrade with a logical
setup. The patch still needs more polishing, though..
--
Michael
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: michael@paquier.xyz, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, vignesh21@gmail.com, kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com, rjuju123@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication
In-Reply-To: <ZROlJo8p2ACv5HmD@paquier.xyz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox