Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0
Date: 2016-06-21 02:10:02
Message-ID: 20160621021002.GF24184@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 09:23:27AM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 5/16/16 2:36 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >Right. I am thinking of writing some docs about how to avoid downtime
> >for upgrades of various types.
>
> If there's some magic sauce to shrink pg_upgrade downtime to near 0 I think
> folks would be very interested in that.
>
> Outside of that scenario, I think what would be far more useful is
> information on how to do seamless master/replica switchovers using tools
> like pgBouncer or pgPool. That ability is useful *all* the time, not just
> when upgrading. It makes it trivial to do OS-level maintenance, and if
> you're using a form of logical replication it also makes it trivial to do
> expensive database maintenance, such as cluster/vacuum full/reindex. I've
> worked with a few clients that had that ability and it was a huge stress
> reducer. As a bonus, an unplanned outage of the master becomes far less
> stressful, because you already know exactly how to fail over.

pg_upgrade's runtime can't be decreased dramatically --- I wanted to
document other methods like you described.

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

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-06-21 02:18:41 Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2016-06-21 02:08:03 Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0