On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 11:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> This thread is getting out of hand, actually.
Agreed. We should start new threads for specific things. Please.
> However, since by definition pg_control doesn't change in a minor
> upgrade, there isn't any easy way to enforce a rule like "slaves must be
> same or newer minor version as the master". I'm not sure that we
> actually *want* to enforce such a rule, though.
Definitely don't want to prevent minor version mismatches. We want to be
able to upgrade a standby, have it catch up with the master then
switchover to the new version. Otherwise we'd have to take whole
replicated system down to do minor upgrades/backouts. Ugh!
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2008-06-04 17:00:13|
|Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-06-04 16:06:44|
|Subject: Re: keyword list/ecpg |
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2008-06-04 16:52:09|
|Subject: Re: Brochures for upcoming shows (was Re: LiveCDs for upcoming shows)|
|Previous:||From: Mike Ellsworth||Date: 2008-06-04 16:10:51|
|Subject: Re: Brochures for upcoming shows (was Re: Live CDs for upcoming shows)|