Re: pg_upgrade: What is changed?
От | Jim C. Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_upgrade: What is changed? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20060824154815.GQ73562@pervasive.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade: What is changed? (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_upgrade: What is changed?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:49:05AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > 8) WAL/XLOG > > Question: Should be deleted? > > I imagine you should probably force a checkpoint and then wipe the wal > records. The WAL isn't going to be able to cover some of the stuff done > during the upgrade, so it'd be useless after anyway. Is there any way around that? If WAL can't be trusted that means if you crash during update, you're hosed. Which means you need to backup the database before upgrading, which greatly increases downtime. Same applies to having to reindex everything. Granted, *any* kind of upgrade not requiring a dump/restore is a major improvement. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: