| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net>, delongboy <sdelong(at)saucontech(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2 with replication? |
| Date: | 2012-11-07 21:18:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpaVZ4K_=s8nLaPsV4MxGGWuA5BGPEwuCkX-kQbnJuz39w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Is there any reason to upgrade the slave when you are going to do rsync
>> > anyway? Of course you need to install the new binaries and libs, but it
>> > seems running pg_upgrade on the standby is unnecessary.
>>
>> Just to speed up the rsync
>
> pg_upgrade is mostly modifying the system tables --- not sure if that is
> faster than just having rsync copy those. The file modification times
> would be different after pg_upgrade, so rsync might copy the file anyway
> when you run pg_upgrade. It would be good for you to test if it really
> is a win --- I would be surprised if pg_upgrade was in this case on the
> standby.
I guess it depends on the release (ie: whether a table rewrite is necessary).
I'll check next time I upgrade a database, but I don't expect it to be
anytime soon.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2012-11-07 21:20:43 | Re: HT on or off for E5-26xx ? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-11-07 20:59:18 | Re: How to upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2 with replication? |