Re: 9.2 to 9.5 pg_upgrade losing data

From: Pete Fuller <pfuller(at)3sitracking(dot)com>
To: Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.2 to 9.5 pg_upgrade losing data
Date: 2016-08-17 14:46:45
Message-ID: A17DB426-FD4E-4518-B2B1-ABB221374541@3sitracking.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

We first noticed the issue after running the generated analyze script, in subsequent tests it shows up before the analyze though.

Ran thru the process as a test monday night and it worked. This time however, I deleted the complete 9.2 data directory before running our rsync scripts that refresh the data and reestablish replication to the master before the attempt. Also disabled all crons and monitoring (zabbix) that could possibly query the server during the attempt.
Will attempt this again tonight using the same process and see if it will work correctly again.

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us <mailto:bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:18:04PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/pgupgrade.html <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/pgupgrade.html>
> >
> > "Obviously, no one should be accessing the clusters during the upgrade.
> > pg_upgrade defaults to running servers on port 50432 to avoid unintended
> > client connections. You can use the same port number for both clusters when
> > doing an upgrade because the old and new clusters will not be running at the
> > same time. However, when checking an old running server, the old and new
> > port numbers must be different."
> >
> > In your OP you do not show overriding pg_upgrade defaults for ports, so
> > assuming the scripts are looking for the live ports and not the upgrade
> > ports that should not be an issue.
>
> Agreed. I have no idea what would cause this, and have never heard a
> report like this before.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us <mailto:bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>> http://momjian.us <http://momjian.us/>
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com <http://enterprisedb.com/>
>
> + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
> + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org <mailto:pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general>
>
> Just out of curiosity, have you you ANALYZE on you db after the upgrade but before doing a count compare?
>
> --
> Melvin Davidson
> I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
> wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitry Igrishin 2016-08-17 15:00:51 Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
Previous Message Serge Rielau 2016-08-17 14:07:49 Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres