| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade: What is changed? |
| Date: | 2006-08-24 15:48:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20060824154815.GQ73562@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:49:05AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > 8) WAL/XLOG
> > Question: Should be deleted?
>
> I imagine you should probably force a checkpoint and then wipe the wal
> records. The WAL isn't going to be able to cover some of the stuff done
> during the upgrade, so it'd be useless after anyway.
Is there any way around that? If WAL can't be trusted that means if you
crash during update, you're hosed. Which means you need to backup the
database before upgrading, which greatly increases downtime. Same
applies to having to reindex everything.
Granted, *any* kind of upgrade not requiring a dump/restore is a major
improvement.
--
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 | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-24 15:55:56 | Re: invalid byte sequence ? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-08-24 15:33:52 | Re: Costs estimates for (inline SQL) functions ... |