|From:||Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name>|
|To:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: pg_upgrade and rsync|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> 20 февр. 2015 г., в 18:21, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> написал(а):
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:45:08AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> #3 bothered me as well because it was not specific enough. I like what
>>> you've added to clarify the procedure.
>> Good. It took me a while to understand why they have to be in sync ---
>> because we are using rsync in size-only-comparison mode, if they are not
>> in sync we might update some files whose sizes changed, but not others,
>> and the old slave would be broken. The new slave is going to get all
>> new files or hard links for user files, so it would be fine, but we
>> should be able to fall back to the old slaves, and having them in sync
>> allows that.
> Also, since there was concern about the instructions, I am thinking of
> applying the patch only to head for 9.5, and then blog about it if
> people want to test it.
Am I right that if you are using hot standby with both streaming replication and WAL shipping you do still need to take full backup of master after using pg_upgrade?
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
> + Everyone has their own god. +
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
May the force be with you...
|Next Message||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI||2015-02-24 09:44:29||Re: pg_basebackup may fail to send feedbacks.|
|Previous Message||Amit Langote||2015-02-24 08:35:27||Re: Partitioning WIP patch (was: Partitioning: issues/ideas)|