Dear All,
any impact of server. If we Can reset manually postgres old version (11) WAL segment size .
Regards,
Ram Pratap.
Lava International Limited.
Tel+ 91-120-4637148
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:bruce@momjian.us]
Sent: 19 June 2020 00:00
To: Stephen Frost
Cc: Tom Lane; Jeff Janes; Michael Paquier; Ram Pratap Maurya; pgsql-bugs
Subject: Re: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes are invalid or do not match
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 02:11:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 01:42:41PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > > > Yeah, we could add a flag to pg_upgrade to allow this if you
> > > > > > are not upgrading replicas, but why bother? It might even
> > > > > > work if you create the new replicas with the same WAL
> > > > > > segment size, but why add complexity for pg_upgrade, which is already complex enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > Users already have to deal with various options that need to
> > > > > be configured to match up between the primary and replicas, so
> > > > > this really seems like it's entirely independent of pg_upgrade
> > > > > and isn't something pg_upgrade needs to be worrying about..
> > > >
> > > > Do you know why we require this step?
> > > >
> > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/pgupgrade.html
> > > >
> > > > Also, change wal_level to replica in the postgresql.conf file on
> > > > the new primary cluster.
> > >
> > > Well, we'll need wal_level to be at least replica if we're going
> > > to have replicas streaming from the primary..
> >
> > But how do they have replicas if wal_level = minimum? Also, why not
> > higher replication levels? Should we adjust that doc text?
>
> I think the comment is saying that pg_resetwal will rewrite the
> pg_control with a WAL level of minimal and that's the issue and why
> the server needs to be brought up with a higher WAL level temporarily,
> so that pg_control gets updated, for the new cluster.
>
> Of course, before pg_upgrade is run, the old cluster would need to be
> up and running with a wal_level higher than minimal in order to have
> replicas in the first place, but what we're really talking about here
> is the new, upgraded, cluster.
>
> I do think the doc could probably say replica 'or higher'.
OK, I will work on that, thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
