From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and rsync |
Date: | 2015-01-23 19:34:36 |
Message-ID: | 20150123193436.GJ3854@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 2015-01-23 14:27:51 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > > On 2015-01-23 14:05:10 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > If I follow what you're suggesting, pg_upgrade would
> > > > need a new 'in-place' mode that removes all of the catalog tables from
> > > > the old cluster and puts the new catalog tables into place and leaves
> > > > everything else alone.
> > >
> > > No. Except that it'd preserve the relfilenodes (i.e. the filenames of
> > > relations) it'd work exactly the same as today. The standby is simply
> > > updated by rsyncing the new data directory of the primary to the
> > > standby.
> >
> > You'd have to replace the existing data directory on the master to do
> > that, which pg_upgrade was designed specifically to not do, in case
> > things went poorly.
>
> Why? Just rsync the new data directory onto the old directory on the
> standbys. That's fine and simple.
That still doesn't address the need to use --size-only, it would just
mean that you don't need to use -H. If anything the -H part is the
aspect which worries me the least about this approach.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-01-23 19:59:52 | Re: Minor issues with code comments related to abbreviated keys |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-01-23 19:32:39 | src/port/gethostname.c sure looks like dead code |