From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Patrick B <patrickbakerbr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Turning slave into a master - PostgreSQL 9.2 |
Date: | 2016-10-31 21:33:18 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbRd8nzG=AYBDj073v7XRFMj0-N5cAinPgsaB9kJ2tAoQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Patrick B <patrickbakerbr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I got a test server, let's call it test01.
>
> The test01 has a basebackup from the master.
> I want to turn test01 into a master. It doesn't need to catch up with the
> wal_files, because I don't need it to be up-to-date.
>
> So what I did is:
>
> - Replaced /var/lib/pgsql/9.2/data/ with the basebackup
> - Created recovery.conf:
>
> restore_command = 'cp /var/lib/pgsql/wal_archive/%f %p'
>
> recovery_target_timeline = 'latest'
>
> standby_mode = off
>
> trigger_file = '/tmp/pg_failover_trigger'
>
> - touch /tmp/pg_failover_trigger
> - service postgresql start
>
> And then postgres starts recovering the wal_files. But I don't want that..
> as I don't need a up-to-date
>
> Is the wal_files required anyway?
>
>
"...has a basebackup from the master" - the answer to your question
depends greatly on the detail behind that sentence.
IIRC, unless you know that the data directory is consistent - because the
database was offline at the time of the backup - at least some WAL will
probably be required to bring the inconsistent backup data directory to a
known good state (i.e., post-checkpoint).
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Patrick B | 2016-10-31 22:59:55 | Re: Turning slave into a master - PostgreSQL 9.2 |
Previous Message | Patrick B | 2016-10-31 20:46:35 | Turning slave into a master - PostgreSQL 9.2 |