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

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 1:32 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:06 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > One month has already been passed since this main patch got committed
> > but reading this change, I have some questions on new
> > binary_upgrade_logical_slot_has_caught_up() function:
> >
> > Is there any reason why this function can be executed only in binary
> > upgrade mode? It seems to me that other functions in
> > pg_upgrade_support.c must be called only in binary upgrade mode
> > because it does some hacky changes internally. On the other hand,
> > binary_upgrade_logical_slot_has_caught_up() just calls
> > LogicalReplicationSlotHasPendingWal(), which doesn't change anything
> > internally. If we make this function usable in normal mode, the user
> > would be able to  check each slot's upgradability without pg_upgrade
> > --check command (or without stopping the server if the user can ensure
> > no more meaningful WAL records are generated).
>
> It may happen that such a user-facing function tells there's no
> unconsumed WAL, but later on the WAL gets generated during pg_upgrade.
> Therefore, the information the function gives turns out to be
> incorrect. I don't see a real-world use-case for such a function right
> now. If there's one, it's not a big change to turn it into a
> user-facing function.
>

Yeah, as of now, I don't see a use case for it and in fact, it could
lead to unpredictable results. Immediately after calling the function,
there could be more activity on the server which could make the
results incorrect. I think to check the slot's upgradeability, one can
rely on the results of the pg_upgrade --check functionality.

> > ---
> > Also, the function checks if the user has the REPLICATION privilege
> > but I think that only superuser can connect to the server in binary
> > upgrade mode in the first place.
>
> If that were true, I don't see a problem in having
> CheckSlotPermissions() there, in fact it can act as an assertion.
>

I think we can change it to assertion or may elog(ERROR, ...) with a
comment as to why we don't expect this can happen.

> > ---
> > The following error message doesn't match the function name:
> >
> >     /* We must check before dereferencing the argument */
> >     if (PG_ARGISNULL(0))
> >         elog(ERROR, "null argument to
> > binary_upgrade_validate_wal_records is not allowed");
> >

This should be fixed.

> > ---
> > { oid => '8046', descr => 'for use by pg_upgrade',
> >   proname => 'binary_upgrade_logical_slot_has_caught_up', proisstrict => 'f',
> >   provolatile => 'v', proparallel => 'u', prorettype => 'bool',
> >   proargtypes => 'name',
> >   prosrc => 'binary_upgrade_logical_slot_has_caught_up' },
> >
> > The function is not a strict function but we check in the function if
> > the passed argument is not null. I think it would be clearer to make
> > it a strict function.
>
> I think it has been done that way similar to
> binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension().
>
> > ---
> > LogicalReplicationSlotHasPendingWal() is defined in logical.c but I
> > guess it's more suitable to be in slotfunc.s where similar functions
> > such as pg_logical_replication_slot_advance() is also defined.
>
> Why not in logicalfuncs.c?
>

I am not sure if either of those is better than logical.c. IIRC, I
thought it was okay to keep in logical.c as others primarily deal with
exposed SQL functions and I felt it somewhat matches with the intent
of logical.c ("The goal is to encapsulate most of the internal
complexity for consumers of logical decoding, so they can create and
consume a changestream with a low amount of code..").

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.