Re: pg_upgrade and rsync - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Vladimir Borodin
Subject Re: pg_upgrade and rsync
Date
Msg-id 131681D2-0411-4F5D-B2D8-47D112677AC4@simply.name
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade and rsync  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade and rsync  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers

20 февр. 2015 г., в 18:21, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> написал(а):

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.

Am I right that if you are using hot standby with both streaming replication and WAL shipping you do still need to take full backup of master after using pg_upgrade?


--
 Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
 EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

 + Everyone has their own god. +


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


--
May the force be with you...




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning WIP patch (was: Partitioning: issues/ideas)
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup may fail to send feedbacks.