| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Uber migrated from Postgres to MySQL |
| Date: | 2016-07-27 15:45:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20160727154501.GA27332@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:22:27AM -0400, Scott Mead wrote:
> That being said, it doesn't really provide a back-out plan. The beauty of
> replication is that you can halt the upgrade at any point if need be and cut
> your (hopefully small) losses. If you use -k, you are all in. Sure, you could
> setup a new standby, stop traffic, upgrade whichever node you'd like (using -k)
> and still have the other ready in the event of total catastrophe. More often
> than not, I see DBAs and sysads lead the conversation with "well, postgres
> can't replicate from one version to another, so instead.... " followed by a
> fast-glazing of management's eyes and a desire to buy a 'commercial database'.
I agree, but I am not sure how to improve it. The big complaint I have
heard is that once you upgrade and open up writes on the upgraded
server, you can't re-apply those writes to the old server if you need to
fall back to the old server. I also don't see how to improve that either.
--
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 +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Geoff Winkless | 2016-07-27 15:51:42 | Re: Uber migrated from Postgres to MySQL |
| Previous Message | Melvin Davidson | 2016-07-27 15:14:51 | Re: low perfomances migrating from 9.3 to 9.5 |