|From:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|To:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, ram(dot)maurya(at)lavainternational(dot)in, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes are invalid or do not match|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 01:42:41PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > Yeah, we could add a flag to pg_upgrade to
> > > > allow this if you are not upgrading replicas, but why bother? It might
> > > > even work if you create the new replicas with the same WAL segment size,
> > > > but why add complexity for pg_upgrade, which is already complex enough.
> > >
> > > Users already have to deal with various options that need to be
> > > configured to match up between the primary and replicas, so this really
> > > seems like it's entirely independent of pg_upgrade and isn't something
> > > pg_upgrade needs to be worrying about..
> > Do you know why we require this step?
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/pgupgrade.html
> > Also, change wal_level to replica in the postgresql.conf file on
> > the new primary cluster.
> Well, we'll need wal_level to be at least replica if we're going to have
> replicas streaming from the primary..
But how do they have replicas if wal_level = minimum? Also, why not
higher replication levels? Should we adjust that doc text?
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
|Next Message||Stephen Frost||2020-06-18 18:11:14||Re: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes are invalid or do not match|
|Previous Message||Stephen Frost||2020-06-18 17:42:41||Re: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes are invalid or do not match|