| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | nqtien310(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14236: pg_upgrade failed |
| Date: | 2016-07-29 03:05:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSrAH8aE=yLeWxJmWBu_=RBvQF1nwCD8XkMuNd4Vn0z8Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Any help will be highly appreciated, we're gonna do the real upgrade on
>> Production next week , so this is very urgent, thanks in advanced
>
> The documentation says:
>
> If you use link mode, the upgrade will be much faster (no file
> copying) and use less disk space, but you will not be able to access
> your old cluster once you start the new cluster after the upgrade.
>
> "You can't access" also means can't re-upgrade the cluster.
Which is why you need to be careful and take a backup of the old
cluster's PGDATA when you use --link. Then in case of upgrade failures
you can fallback to that easily. Using --link has the advantage of
speed, and it has also the advantage to minimize the error handling
when a disk gets full if that's a constraint in what you do, because
you don't need to have up to twice the amount of space required to
hold on a system the old and new cluster's data (tablespaces on the
new and old instances share the same base path, with a different
sub-folder).
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-07-29 03:25:57 | Re: BUG #14239: Array of array type reporting |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-07-29 02:49:53 | Re: BUG #14236: pg_upgrade failed |