From: | Martín Marqués <martin(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | DEGLAVE Remi <remi(dot)deglave(at)lyreco(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PG_UPGRADE] 9.6 to 10.5 |
Date: | 2018-08-16 11:15:43 |
Message-ID: | CAPdiE1xYCow-reLjrhJ9DqrMu-ppNq0ChUUEvVdxhdjGRD5_eA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
2018-08-14 18:23 GMT-03:00 Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>:
>
> I have not seen any report from the original reporter so I have gone
> ahead and committed the fix suggested by Michael Paquier.
>
> This means that standby upgrades will fail in 10.5 until 10.6 is
> released. Ugh! I guess users can upgrade to 10.4 and then do a minor
> upgrade to 10.5 as a workaround.
I didn't want to jump in earlier as I'm not a pg_upgrade expert, and
to be honest, haven't done any code reading around this tool, but I
was puzzled with Michael's comment on pg_upgrade failing on a standby
node. I have always been under the impression that pg_upgrade had to
be executed on a primary server, and standbys had to be recloned or
rsynced (which is just the old way of recloning).
Maybe there's something I wasn't aware of. But if that's the case,
then the docs don't reflect this missing knowledge and we should amend
it.
Regards,
--
Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2018-08-16 11:30:09 | BUG #15331: Please check if recovery.conf can be renamed |
Previous Message | DEGLAVE Remi | 2018-08-16 07:05:53 | RE: [PG_UPGRADE] 9.6 to 10.5 |