On 2021-Nov-04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is there really any point in issuing such advice? IIUC, the standbys
> would be unable to proceed anyway in case of a primary crash at the
> wrong time, because an un-updated primary would send them inconsistent
> WAL. If anything, it seems like it might be marginally better to
> update the primary first, reducing the window for it to send WAL that
> the standbys will *never* be able to handle. Then, if it crashes, at
> least the WAL contains something the standbys can process once you
> update them.
Yes -- in production settings, it is better to be able to shut down the
standbys in a scheduled manner, than find out after updating the primary
that your standbys are suddenly inaccessible until you take the further
action of updating them.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Si no sabes adonde vas, es muy probable que acabes en otra parte.
