From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and rsync |
Date: | 2015-01-23 00:19:33 |
Message-ID: | 20150123001933.GK11664@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-01-22 14:20:51 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It is possible to upgrade on pg_upgrade on streaming standby servers by
> making them master servers, running pg_upgrade on them, then shuting
> down all servers and using rsync to make the standby servers match the
> real master.
Isn't that a pretty crazy procedure? If you need to shut down all
servers anyway, you can just rsync after having run pg_upgrade on the
master, no? Rsync won't really transfer less just because you ran a
similar thing on the standby.
Even if this would allow to avoid some traffic for fsync: There's
absolutely no guarantee that the standby's pg_upgrade results in a all
that similar data directory. Far from everything in postgres is
deterministic - it's easy to hit timing differences that result in
noticeable differences.
Or do you - as the text edited in your patch, but not the quote above -
mean to run pg_upgrade just on the primary and then rsync?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-01-23 00:34:35 | Re: Sequence Access Method WIP |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-01-23 00:09:35 | Re: TABLESAMPLE patch |