From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers) |
Date: | 2017-07-31 16:13:17 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ=nAuNGtc8UwxmG8Ooyni5VHU=WniMXLjS6n3um23ohg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh
<andreas(at)visena(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm reading https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/pgupgrade.html to try
> to understand how to upgrade standby-servers using pg_upgrade with pg10.
>
> The text in step 10 sais:
> "You will not be running pg_upgrade on the standby servers, but rather
> rsync", which to me sounds like rsync, in step 10-f, should be issued on the
> standy servers. Is this the case? If so I don't understand how the standby's
> data is upgraded and what "remote_dir" is. If rsync is supposed to be issued
> on the primary then I think it should be explicitly mentioned, and step 10-f
> should provide a clarer example with more detailed values for the
> directory-structures involved.
>
> I really think section 10 needs improvement as I'm certainly not comfortable
> upgrading standbys following the existing procedure.
Yeah, I don't understand it either, and I have never been convinced
that there's any safe way to do it other than recloning the standbys
from the upgraded master.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Verite | 2017-07-31 16:21:44 | Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values |
Previous Message | Mengxing Liu | 2017-07-31 16:11:59 | [GOSC' 17][Performance report] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions |