Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:51 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Attach the new version patch.

Thanks. Here are some comments on v55 patch:

1. A nit:
+
+    /*
+     * We also skip decoding in 'fast_forward' mode. In passing set the
+     * 'processing_required' flag to indicate, were it not for this mode,
+     * processing *would* have been required.
+     */
How about "We also skip decoding in fast_forward mode. In passing set
the processing_required flag to indicate that if it were not for
fast_forward mode, processing would have been required."?

2. Don't we need InvalidateSystemCaches() after FreeDecodingContext()?

+    /* Clean up */
+    FreeDecodingContext(ctx);

3. Don't we need to put CreateDecodingContext in PG_TRY-PG_CATCH with
InvalidateSystemCaches() in PG_CATCH block? I think we need to clear
all timetravel entries with InvalidateSystemCaches(), no?

4. The following assertion better be an error? Or we ensure that
binary_upgrade_slot_has_caught_up isn't called for an invalidated slot
at all?
+
+    /* Slots must be valid as otherwise we won't be able to scan the WAL */
+    Assert(MyReplicationSlot->data.invalidated == RS_INVAL_NONE);

5. This better be an error instead of returning false? IMO, null value
for slot name is an error.
+    /* Quick exit if the input is NULL */
+    if (PG_ARGISNULL(0))
+        PG_RETURN_BOOL(false);

6. A nit: how about is_decodable_txn or is_decodable_change or some
other instead of just a plain name processing_required?
+    /* Do we need to process any change in 'fast_forward' mode? */
+    bool        processing_required;

7. Can the following pg_fatal message be consistent and start with
lowercase letter something like "expected 0 logical replication slots
...."?
+        pg_fatal("Expected 0 logical replication slots but found %d.",
+                 nslots_on_new);

8. s/problem/problematic - "A list of problematic slots is in the file:\n"
+                 "A list of the problem slots is in the file:\n"

9. IMO, binary_upgrade_logical_replication_slot_has_caught_up seems
better, meaningful and consistent despite a bit long than just
binary_upgrade_slot_has_caught_up.

10. How about an assert that the passed-in replication slot is logical
in binary_upgrade_slot_has_caught_up?

11. How about adding CheckLogicalDecodingRequirements too in
binary_upgrade_slot_has_caught_up after CheckSlotPermissions just in
case?

12. Not necessary but adding ReplicationSlotValidateName(slot_name,
ERROR); for the passed-in slotname in
binary_upgrade_slot_has_caught_up may be a good idea, at least in
assert builds to help with input validations.

13. Can the functionality of LogicalReplicationSlotHasPendingWal be
moved to binary_upgrade_slot_has_caught_up and get rid of a separate
function LogicalReplicationSlotHasPendingWal? Or is it that the
function exists in logical.c to avoid extra dependencies between
logical.c and pg_upgrade_support.c?

14. I think it's better to check if the old cluster contains the
necessary function binary_upgrade_slot_has_caught_up instead of just
relying on major version.
+    /* Logical slots can be migrated since PG17. */
+    if (GET_MAJOR_VERSION(old_cluster.major_version) <= 1600)
+        return;

-- 
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com