Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10(upgrading standby servers) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10(upgrading standby servers)
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqS9pL7qwRu8ku8byvYYZOEHHXzUAgSJRbP7AENtHT8E_A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10(upgrading standby servers)  (Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10(upgrading standby servers)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh
<andreas@visena.com> wrote:
> I tested upgrading from 9.6 to 10 now, using pg_upgrade, and pg_upgrade
> creates the new data-dir with pg_wal "in it" (just like regular initdb), so
> pg_upgrade seems not to care about where the old version's pg_xlog was. You
> have to move (by symlinking) pg_wal to a separate location manually *after*
> running pg_upgrade on the master.

That's true, this should definitely be mentioned in the documentation.
An improvement could be done as well here for pg_upgrade: when using
--link, the new PGDATA created could consider as well the source
pg_wal and create a link to it, and then clean up its contents. I am
not completely sure if this would be worth doing as people are likely
used to the current flow though. The documentation needs to outline
the matter at least.
-- 
Michael


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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables
Next
From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Process startup infrastructure is a mess