Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node
Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
"Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-09-28T07:53:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 1:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:44 AM Bharath Rupireddy > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > No, without that commit, there is a very high possibility that even if > > > we have sent the WAL to the subscriber and got the acknowledgment of > > > the same, we would miss updating it before shutdown. This would lead > > > to upgrade failures because upgrades have no way to later identify > > > whether the remaining WAL records are sent to the subscriber. > > > > Thanks for clarifying. I'm trying understand what happens without > > commit e0b2eed0 with an illustration: > > > > step 1: publisher - confirmed_flush LSN in replication slot on disk > > structure is 80 > > step 2: publisher - sends WAL at LSN 100 > > step 3: subscriber - acknowledges the apply LSN or confirmed_flush LSN as 100 > > step 4: publisher - shuts down without writing the new confirmed_flush > > LSN as 100 to disk, note that commit e0b2eed0 is not in place > > step 5: publisher - restarts > > step 6: subscriber - upon publisher restart, the subscriber requests > > WAL from publisher from LSN 100 as it tracks the last applied LSN in > > replication origin > > > > Now, if the pg_upgrade with the patch in this thread is run on > > publisher after step 4, it complains with "The slot \"%s\" has not > > consumed the WAL yet". > > > > Is my above understanding right? > > > > Yes. Thanks. Trying things with replication lag - when there's a lag, the pg_upgrade can't proceed further and it complains "The slot "mysub" has not consumed the WAL yet". I think the best way to upgrade a postgres instance with logical replication slots is: 1) ensure no replication lag for the logical slots; 2) perform pg_upgrade --check first; 3) perform pg_upgrade if there are no complaints. With the above understanding, it looks to me that the commit e0b2eed0 isn't necessary for back branches. Because, without it the pg_upgrade complains "The slot "mysub" has not consumed the WAL yet", and then the user has to restart the instance to ensure the WAL is consumed (IOW, to get the correct confirmed_flush LSN to the disk). -- Bharath Rupireddy PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Commits
-
Fix issues in binary_upgrade_logical_slot_has_caught_up().
- 0bf62460bb9e 17.0 landed
-
Fix a random failure in 003_logical_slots.pl.
- 63c5df126abb 17.0 landed
-
Fix a test in 003_logical_slots.
- 3e36e48d8efe 17.0 landed
-
Fix uninitialized slot array access during the upgrade.
- a7db71ed2787 17.0 landed
-
Fix the test 003_logical_slots.
- 8af917be6bad 17.0 landed
-
Commit b195e6d482 forgot to update meson.build.
- 8949b978ff49 17.0 landed
-
Use shorter file names in the upgrade logical slots test.
- b195e6d482b8 17.0 landed
-
Migrate logical slots to the new node during an upgrade.
- 29d0a77fa660 17.0 landed
-
Flush logical slots to disk during a shutdown checkpoint if required.
- e0b2eed047df 17.0 landed
-
Prevent possibility of panics during shutdown checkpoint.
- c6c333436491 10.0 cited