| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Using pg_upgrade on log-shipping standby servers |
| Date: | 2012-07-26 23:29:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20120726232943.GB24239@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 02:26:16PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 14:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Yes, that would be a problem because the WAL records are deleted by
> > pg_upgrade. Does a shutdown of the standby not already replay all WAL
> > logs?
>
> There is no notion of "all WAL logs" because the WAL is infinite. Do you
> mean "all WAL generated by the master before shutdown" or "all WAL that
> the standby knows has been generated by the master so far"?
>
> Regardless, I don't think the standby attempts to do much after a
> shutdown is requested.
Doesn't matter anymore --- I now know pg_upgrade has to be run on the
standby, and it will be in primary mode and do full WAL reading before
it starts.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2012-07-27 00:12:48 | Re: isolation check takes a long time |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-07-26 23:24:43 | Re: Using pg_upgrade on log-shipping standby servers |