Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segment size
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segment size |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5018.1510614544@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segment size (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segmentsize
Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segment size |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >> Even if that's the case, I fail to see why it'd be a good idea to have >> any sort of pg_upgrade integration here. We should make pg_resetwal's >> checks for this good enough, and not conflate something unrelated with >> pg_upgrade goals. > Both positions can be defended. Note that some users like to have the > upgrade experience within one single command do as much as possible if > possible, and this may include the possibility to switch segment size > to make the tool more friendly. I definitely agree with your point to > make the low-level magic happen in pg_resetwal though. Having > pg_upgrade call that at will could be argued afterwards. FWIW, I agree with Andres' position here. I think the charter of pg_upgrade is to duplicate the old cluster as closely as it can, not to modify its configuration. A close analogy is that it does not attempt to upgrade extension versions while migrating the cluster. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: