MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAFPTHDa5aP8ixTZBygGAe48E1N=DvuPzcXikw7bNKixLMN3pVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <OS9PR01MB12149E188221BED862E4BE9E0F5342@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALDaNm2-uwpbJ8fnrssp+hORvOutsqRoZAsa05xVVzXe5Bt3bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPTHDaNLRqPAda1RUDVfSDH7eLTaONv0UEmc9H5sdMW1Li2Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN4CZFOb3urMsLPsEyVrYR7-7yA+BC5kDgQQd0nAQ8xj2zyRcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPTHDYqpuZ6o2-HuCJDYqJ7GY3+zV+Xo-gT7PAgi4Bkz+oTxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN4CZFN4oLdxLwUXHUPV-5mFmK+4dcnppP00fV3i4qmMYCAkGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPTHDbBiTfjYkQwYTNA2a4LRp8Sp7_zB59fmV0R7977ztxgmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPTHDaftSwzGTGbFEw8rwDBsub0XqcDm1wxQcquj-Y3PC2qrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANhcyEVercsNbgC5CTkMNzh_w_Jv1uK7RQg9vEvAeNQhoBHCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANhcyEVercsNbgC5CTkMNzh_w_Jv1uK7RQg9vEvAeNQhoBHCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 15:57:32 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAJpy0uAXynzWr4w_9GkJC3i=LL9WsRCZYVWAV0PgKmgs8riWzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Preserve replication origin OIDs in pg_upgrade
To: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>
Cc: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>,
 vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
	"Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 shveta malik <shvetamalik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uAXynzWr4w_9GkJC3i%3DLL9WsRCZYVWAV0PgKmgs8riWzg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 3:16=E2=80=AFPM Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 16:13, Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rebased the patch as it was no longer applying.
> >
> Hi Ajin,
>
> I have started reviewing the patch. Here is my comment for v6-0002 patch:
>
> Suppose we have a replication setup: publisher -> subscriber
> and we are upgrading subscriber to subscriber_new.
> And if initially 'subscriber_new' has a replication origin, upgrading
> the cluster can error out.
>
> Example:
> We set up a logical replication between publisher node and subscriber nod=
e.
>
> On subscriber node:
> postgres=3D# SELECT * FROM pg_replication_origin;
>  roident |  roname
> ---------+----------
>        1 | pg_16393
> (1 row)
>
> And initially subscriber_new has a replication origin:
> postgres=3D# select pg_replication_origin_create('myname');
>  pg_replication_origin_create
> ------------------------------
>                             1
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=3D# SELECT * FROM pg_replication_origin;
>  roident | roname
> ---------+--------
>        1 | myname
> (1 row)
>
> Now, if we run pg_upgrade to upgrade subscriber node to subscriber_new
> node, we get an error:
> ```
> SELECT pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_create_replication_origin('1'::pg_catalo=
g.oid,
> 'pg_16393'::pg_catalog.name, '0/01743078'::pg_catalog.pg_lsn);
> psql:subscriber_new/pg_upgrade_output.d/20260522T140312.807/dump/pg_upgra=
de_dump_globals.sql:37:
> ERROR:  replication origin with ID 1 already exists
> ```
>
> This error occurs in "Performing Upgrade" stage. Should we add a check
> in the "Performing Consistency Checks" stage so that we don't need to
> re-initdb the new cluster to perform the upgrade?
> Maybe we can add a check similar to
> check_new_cluster_replication_slots(), where pg_upgrade errors out if
> the new cluster already contains replication origins. Thoughts?

+1. I had the same thought while reviewing the patch today. We should
have it unless there is a reason we have avoided it??

Few trivial comments:

1)

+#include "access/skey.h"
+#include "catalog/indexing.h"

pg_upgrade_support.c compiles without above.

2)
+ Assert(!OidIsValid(rel->rd_rel->reltoastrelid));

Is there a reason for this sanity check? I generally do not see a
Null-Toast table sanity check after every table_open.

3)

+
+ /* Dump replication origins */
+ if (server_version >=3D 170000 && binary_upgrade && archDumpFormat =3D=3D=
 archNull)
+ dumpReplicationOrigins(conn);

why the check is for PG17 specifically?

thanks
Shveta