| From: | Mohamed Wael Khobalatte <mkhobalatte(at)grubhub(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Atul Kumar <akumar14871(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: upgrade using logical replication |
| Date: | 2021-01-21 00:19:16 |
| Message-ID: | CABZeWdwhQxPCfiWHyGKSZ-8zr_NpESkVXnEpYca27jkKK0-RFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:37 PM Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> wrote:
> Using pg_upgrade takes minutes for an in place upgrade. If you can allow
> 1+ hour of downtime, it seems overly complicated to use logical replication.
>
I suppose the Atul's issue is what to do with the replicas. Once he does
pg_upgrade, then he will need to provision new ones, no? I suppose in this
case logical would be better, with the new instance itself having replicas.
I haven't done it, and it's gonna require some setup time, definitely much
longer than pg_upgrade then make do with one server until your new physical
replicas are set up.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Keith Christian | 2021-01-21 00:27:59 | See what options a Postgresql binary was compiled with |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-01-20 20:35:55 | Re: work_mem, temp_buffers, and temp_file_limit |