Re: pg_upgrade and rsync

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and rsync
Date: 2015-02-20 15:21:56
Message-ID: 20150220152156.GB20442@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2015-02-20 16:20:28 Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-02-20 15:21:50 Merge compact/non compact commits, make aborts dynamically sized