From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Rawnsley <ronz(at)ravensfield(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: version upgrade |
Date: | 2004-09-01 14:29:05 |
Message-ID: | 4135DCB1.2080605@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2004, at 6:30 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Huh? You can replicate onto the same server. Kicks your
>> performance in
>> the teeth but it works fine. Heck, I did it on my laptop as a demo.
>
> Doesn't work If you have say, a 100GB db and only 50GB free space.
> Not nearly enough to duplicate. But plenty of breathing room for normal
> operation.
>
> Various db's support in place upgrades. and I'm thankful I tried
> Informix's out on a test db first because it simply scribbled over all
> the data instead of upgrading. Support told me that can happen
> sometimes. COOL HUH?
I think that's an incredibly important point, i.e., even if you want to
do an "in place" upgrade, you ought to be testing it out first on a
*full* copy of your production database. IMHO, anything less than a full
test is playing fast-and-loose with your data. This in turn implies that
you need enough space for a full replica anyway, so why not use slony?
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-09-01 14:41:42 | Re: version upgrade |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-01 13:58:20 | Re: Data point on the competition regarding selectivity of unknown parameters |