Re: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes areinvalid or do not match
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes areinvalid or do not match |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200618180058.GK7349@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes areinvalid or do not match (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes areinvalid or do not match
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 01:42:41PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > Yeah, we could add a flag to pg_upgrade to > > > > allow this if you are not upgrading replicas, but why bother? It might > > > > even work if you create the new replicas with the same WAL segment size, > > > > but why add complexity for pg_upgrade, which is already complex enough. > > > > > > Users already have to deal with various options that need to be > > > configured to match up between the primary and replicas, so this really > > > seems like it's entirely independent of pg_upgrade and isn't something > > > pg_upgrade needs to be worrying about.. > > > > Do you know why we require this step? > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/pgupgrade.html > > > > Also, change wal_level to replica in the postgresql.conf file on > > the new primary cluster. > > Well, we'll need wal_level to be at least replica if we're going to have > replicas streaming from the primary.. But how do they have replicas if wal_level = minimum? Also, why not higher replication levels? Should we adjust that doc text? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: