Re: pg_upgrade instructions involving "rsync --size-only" might lead to standby corruption?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik(at)postgres(dot)ai>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade instructions involving "rsync --size-only" might lead to standby corruption?
Date: 2023-06-30 22:36:01
Message-ID: ZJ9Y0TLJ9xczF5s2@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 03:18:03PM -0700, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> I wonder, if we ensure that standbys are fully caught up before upgrading the
> primary, if we check the latest checkpoint positions, are we good to use "rsync
> --size-only", or there are still some concerns? It seems so to me, but maybe
> I'm missing something.

Yes, I think you are correct.

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

Only you can decide what is important to you.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2023-06-30 22:37:39 Re: Initdb-time block size specification
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-06-30 22:27:50 Re: Should we remove db_user_namespace?