| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal |
| Date: | 2016-07-07 23:18:28 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jL=2fMUq3CoRPJqTBdzn_tE_D7Orh2m8EZSFK-nNJHa+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 July 2016 at 21:10, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> pg_upgrade does that, kinda. I'd like to have something better, but
> in the absence of that, I think it's quite wrong to think about
> deprecating it, even if we had logical replication fully integrated
> into core today. Which we by no means do.
>
I don't see any problem with extending pg_upgrade to use logical
replication features under the covers.
It seems very smooth to be able to just say
pg_upgrade --online
and then specify whatever other parameters that requires.
It would be much easier to separate out that as a use-case so we can be
sure we get that in 10.0, even if nothing else lands.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-07-07 23:31:24 | Re: Header and comments describing routines in incorrect shape in visibilitymap.c |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-07-07 23:15:19 | Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal |