Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:43:28PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2016 17:36, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > In a master/slave setup with pg_logical, a major upgrade is _near_
> > zero-downtime, because you have to switch over all write transactions at
> > a single point in time when you promote the slave to master.  So you
> > have to either prevent new write transactions from going to the slave
> > while you wait for the master transactions to finish, or (more likely)
> > you have to terminate the write transactions on the master and then
> > promote the slave to master and allow everything to reconnect.
> >
> > (In practice, you can't change a read/write server to read-only without
> > a restart, so effectively all old-master transactions have to be drained
> > at some point.)
>
> You can make it closer to, or completely zero, if you combine it with pgbouncer
> in transaction pooling mode. There will be a performance hiccup, but it should
> work.

That is an interesting approach. How many applications are prepared to
re-sent a transaction block based on the error returned by pgbouncer in
this case?

I am thinking our docs need a new section about reducing downtime during
switch-over, and using logical replication for major version upgrades.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +