From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
Cc: | John Lumby <johnlumby(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: how to switch old replication Master to new Standby after promoting old Standby |
Date: | 2016-03-14 22:20:12 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRX9paYXoMCq7x+cfpxfQ+uiBFO1jFmEVAYjJkE=2yH4w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr
<oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 6:28 PM, John Lumby <johnlumby(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 1. shut down both new Master and intended-to-be-new-Standby
>> 2. on intended-to-be-new-Standby, remove the entire content of pg_xlog and
>> the global/pg_control
>> 3. from new Master , tar + scp the entire content of pg_xlog and the
>> global/pg_control to intended-to-be-new-Standby
This is not robust and will corrupt your standby. Just take the case
of a relation data block modified on the to-be-new standby, and not
replayed since the last checkpoint before WAL forked: data will be
corrupted. Inconsistent pg_clog will likely break things.
> That does seem like a very risky strategy to me. Have you taken a look at
> pg_rewind (which is now part of the distribution)?
pg_rewind has been designed for that, and ensures that the
soon-to-be-standby has a minimum recovery target sufficient. You had
better use it.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | drum.lucas@gmail.com | 2016-03-14 22:44:08 | Re: Unique UUID value - PostgreSQL 9.2 |
Previous Message | John Lumby | 2016-03-14 22:08:02 | Re: how to switch old replication Master to new Standby after promoting old Standby |