Re: pg_upgrade and rsync

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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 18:48:53
Message-ID: 20150123184853.GN11664@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-01-22 20:54:47 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:19:33AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > No, I was going to run it on both, then rsync.
>
> I'm pretty sure this is all a lot easier than you believe it to be. If
> you want to recreate what pg_upgrade does to a cluster then the simplest
> thing to do is rsync before removing any of the hard links. rsync will
> simply recreate the same hard link tree that pg_upgrade created when it
> ran, and update files which were actually changed (the catalog tables).

I don't understand why that'd be better than simply fixing (yes, that's
imo the correct term) pg_upgrade to retain relfilenodes across the
upgrade. Afaics there's no conflict risk and it'd make the clusters much
more similar, which would be good; independent of rsyncing standbys.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-01-23 18:52:03 Re: basebackups during ALTER DATABASE ... SET TABLESPACE ... not safe?
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2015-01-23 18:44:23 Re: Parallel Seq Scan