Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

I tested a test scenario:
I started a new publisher with 'max_replication_slots' parameter set
to '1' and created a streaming replication with the new publisher as
primary node.
Then I did a pg_upgrade from old publisher to new publisher. The
upgrade failed with following error:

Restoring logical replication slots in the new cluster
SQL command failed
SELECT * FROM pg_catalog.pg_create_logical_replication_slot('test1',
'pgoutput', false, false);
ERROR:  all replication slots are in use
HINT:  Free one or increase max_replication_slots.

Failure, exiting

Should we document that the existing replication slots are taken in
consideration while setting 'max_replication_slots' value in the new
publisher?

Thanks
Shlok Kumar Kyal

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 15:01, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Thank you for reviewing! PSA new version.
> Note that 0001 and 0002 are combined into one patch.
>
> > Here are some review comments for v51-0001
> >
> > ======
> > src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c
> >
> > 0.
> > +check_old_cluster_for_valid_slots(bool live_check)
> > +{
> > + char output_path[MAXPGPATH];
> > + FILE    *script = NULL;
> > +
> > + prep_status("Checking for valid logical replication slots");
> > +
> > + snprintf(output_path, sizeof(output_path), "%s/%s",
> > + log_opts.basedir,
> > + "invalid_logical_relication_slots.txt");
> >
> > 0a
> > typo /invalid_logical_relication_slots/invalid_logical_replication_slots/
>
> Fixed.
>
> > 0b.
> > Since the non-upgradable slots are not strictly "invalid", is this an
> > appropriate filename for the bad ones?
> >
> > But I don't have very good alternatives. Maybe:
> > - non_upgradable_logical_replication_slots.txt
> > - problem_logical_replication_slots.txt
>
> Per discussion [1], I kept current style.
>
> > src/bin/pg_upgrade/t/003_upgrade_logical_replication_slots.pl
> >
> > 1.
> > +# ------------------------------
> > +# TEST: Confirm pg_upgrade fails when wrong GUC is set on new cluster
> > +#
> > +# There are two requirements for GUCs - wal_level and max_replication_slots,
> > +# but only max_replication_slots will be tested here. This is because to
> > +# reduce the execution time of the test.
> >
> >
> > SUGGESTION
> > # TEST: Confirm pg_upgrade fails when the new cluster has wrong GUC values.
> > #
> > # Two GUCs are required - 'wal_level' and 'max_replication_slots' - but to
> > # reduce the test execution time, only 'max_replication_slots' is tested here.
>
> First part was fixed. Second part was removed per [1].
>
> > 2.
> > +# Preparations for the subsequent test:
> > +# 1. Create two slots on the old cluster
> > +$old_publisher->start;
> > +$old_publisher->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "SELECT pg_create_logical_replication_slot('test_slot1',
> > 'test_decoding', false, true);"
> > +);
> > +$old_publisher->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "SELECT pg_create_logical_replication_slot('test_slot2',
> > 'test_decoding', false, true);"
> > +);
> >
> >
> > Can't you combine those SQL in the same $old_publisher->safe_psql.
>
> Combined.
>
> > 3.
> > +# Clean up
> > +rmtree($new_publisher->data_dir . "/pg_upgrade_output.d");
> > +# Set max_replication_slots to the same value as the number of slots. Both of
> > +# slots will be used for subsequent tests.
> > +$new_publisher->append_conf('postgresql.conf', "max_replication_slots = 1");
> >
> > The code doesn't seem to match the comment - is this correct? The
> > old_publisher created 2 slots, so why are you setting new_publisher
> > "max_replication_slots = 1" again?
>
> Fixed to "max_replication_slots = 2" Note that previous test worked well because
> GUC checking on new cluster is done after checking the status of slots.
>
> > 4.
> > +# Preparations for the subsequent test:
> > +# 1. Generate extra WAL records. Because these WAL records do not get
> > consumed
> > +# it will cause the upcoming pg_upgrade test to fail.
> > +$old_publisher->start;
> > +$old_publisher->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "CREATE TABLE tbl AS SELECT generate_series(1, 10) AS a;");
> > +
> > +# 2. Advance the slot test_slot2 up to the current WAL location
> > +$old_publisher->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "SELECT pg_replication_slot_advance('test_slot2', NULL);");
> > +
> > +# 3. Emit a non-transactional message. test_slot2 detects the message so that
> > +# this slot will be also reported by upcoming pg_upgrade.
> > +$old_publisher->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "SELECT count(*) FROM pg_logical_emit_message('false', 'prefix',
> > 'This is a non-transactional message');"
> > +);
> >
> >
> > I felt this test would be clearer if you emphasised the state of the
> > test_slot1 also. e.g.
> >
> > 4a.
> > BEFORE
> > +# 1. Generate extra WAL records. Because these WAL records do not get
> > consumed
> > +# it will cause the upcoming pg_upgrade test to fail.
> >
> > SUGGESTION
> > # 1. Generate extra WAL records. At this point neither test_slot1 nor test_slot2
> > #    has consumed them.
>
> Fixed.
>
> > 4b.
> > BEFORE
> > +# 2. Advance the slot test_slot2 up to the current WAL location
> >
> > SUGGESTION
> > # 2. Advance the slot test_slot2 up to the current WAL location, but test_slot2
> > #    still has unconsumed WAL records.
>
> IIUC, test_slot2 is caught up by pg_replication_slot_advance('test_slot2'). I think
> "but test_slot1 still has unconsumed WAL records." is appropriate. Fixed.
>
> > 5.
> > +# pg_upgrade will fail because the slot still has unconsumed WAL records
> > +command_checks_all(
> >
> > /because the slot still has/because there are slots still having/
>
> Fixed.
>
> > 6.
> > + [qr//],
> > + 'run of pg_upgrade of old cluster with slot having unconsumed WAL records'
> > +);
> >
> > /slot/slots/
>
> Fixed.
>
> > 7.
> > +# And check the content. Both of slots must be reported that they have
> > +# unconsumed WALs after confirmed_flush_lsn.
> >
> > SUGGESTION
> > # Check the file content. Both slots should be reporting that they have
> > # unconsumed WAL records.
>
> Fixed.
>
> >
> > 8.
> > +# Preparations for the subsequent test:
> > +# 1. Setup logical replication
> > +my $old_connstr = $old_publisher->connstr . ' dbname=postgres';
> > +
> > +$old_publisher->start;
> > +
> > +$old_publisher->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "SELECT * FROM pg_drop_replication_slot('test_slot1');");
> > +$old_publisher->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "SELECT * FROM pg_drop_replication_slot('test_slot2');");
> > +
> > +$old_publisher->safe_psql('postgres',
> > + "CREATE PUBLICATION regress_pub FOR ALL TABLES;");
> >
> >
> > 8a.
> > /Setup logical replication/Setup logical replication (first, cleanup
> > slots from the previous tests)/
>
> Fixed.
>
> > 8b.
> > Can't you combine all those SQL in the same $old_publisher->safe_psql.
>
> Combined.
>
> > 9.
> > +
> > +# Actual run, successful upgrade is expected
> > +command_ok(
> > + [
> > + 'pg_upgrade', '--no-sync',
> > + '-d', $old_publisher->data_dir,
> > + '-D', $new_publisher->data_dir,
> > + '-b', $bindir,
> > + '-B', $bindir,
> > + '-s', $new_publisher->host,
> > + '-p', $old_publisher->port,
> > + '-P', $new_publisher->port,
> > + $mode,
> > + ],
> > + 'run of pg_upgrade of old cluster');
> >
> > Now that the "Dry run" part is removed, it seems unnecessary to say
> > "Actual run" for this part.
> >
> >
> > SUGGESTION
> > # pg_upgrade should be successful.
>
> Fixed.
>
> [1]:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BAHSWPs2_jn%3DftJKRqz-NXU6o%3DrPQ3f%3DH-gcPsgpPFrw%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Best Regards,
> Hayato Kuroda
> FUJITSU LIMITED
>