Re: Patch for migration of the pg_commit_ts directory
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
Cc: ls7777 <ls7777@yandex.ru>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-10-02T08:49:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 12:10 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > Yes, track_commit_timestamp must be installed in the new instance. > > This is only the responsibility of an experienced user. > > pg_upgrage should allow you to save pg_commit_ts if this data exists at the time of migration. > > Warnings are not needed, the loss of this data is not critical in most cases. > > They were lost with each migration if users did not manually migrate them. > > So, your policy is that commit_ts is not the user data thus it is OK to drop during > the upgrade, is it correct? > IIUC, the proposal is that if GUC track_commit_timestamp is enabled on the new instance then we should copy it, otherwise, we can drop copying it. Is my understanding correct? I think we can follow what is done check_new_cluster_replication_slots() for the case when track_commit_timestamp is not set on the new server. When we try to copy slots and the wal_level on the new server is minimal, we error out, so shouldn't we do the same here and error_out if track_commit_timestamp is not enabled and we have some valid commit_ts data to copy? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Update copyright for 2026
- 451c43974f8e 19 (unreleased) cited