| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tory M Blue <tmblue(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification on using pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2016-06-14 21:03:19 |
| Message-ID: | 4241f359-ec01-dc73-f742-20fdbc81755a@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 4/19/16 11:01 PM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>>> >> Slon is also starting to not be viable as it takes some indexes over 7
>>> >> hours to complete. So this upgrade path seemed to really be nice.
>> >
>> >
>> > If you're standing up a new replica from scratch on the latest version, I'm
>> > not really sure why that matters?
> Not sure why the 7-13 hours causes an issue? Because if I'm upgrading
> via slon process, I have to add and drop a node. If I'm dropping my
> secondary (slave) I have to move reporting to the master, so now the
> master is handing normal inserts and reports. Next item, I'm without
> a replica for 13+ hours, that's not good either.
Don't drop and add a node, just do a master switchover. AFAIK that's
nearly instant as long as things are in sync.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tory M Blue | 2016-06-14 21:08:15 | Re: Clarification on using pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-06-14 21:00:11 | Re: pg_database_size |