From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rodrigo Hjort <rodrigo(dot)hjort(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Restoring a Full Cluster on a Different Architecture (32 x 64) |
Date: | 2006-03-14 19:29:20 |
Message-ID: | 20060314192920.GP45250@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 02:12:39PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Jim C. Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Setting up Slony might be another option; you'd essentially be following
> > the procedure used to speed up a PostgreSQL upgrade that would normally
> > require a dump/reload.
>
>
> If you need to do this on a continuing basis, Slony is the best way to go.
> If it's a one-time shot, I'd just pipe pg_dump to a psql that's connected to
> PostgreSQL on your 32-bit system.
Well, it's not so much a matter of how often you have to do it, but what
kind of downtime you can tolerate. Setting up Slony just to move a
cluster from one machine to another is a good amount of extra work, so
if you don't have the uptime requirement it probably doesn't make sense.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2006-03-15 04:14:12 | Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-03-14 19:13:23 | Re: log_duration and log_statement |