Re: pg_upgrade and rsync
| От | David Steele |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_upgrade and rsync |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 54CAC4AB.5060407@pgmasters.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade and rsync (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
<div class="moz-text-plain" graphical-quote="true" lang="x-western" style="font-family: -moz-fixed; font-size: 12px;" wrap="true"><prewrap="">On 1/29/15 11:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: </pre><blockquote style="color: #000000;" type="cite"><pre wrap="">3. Check that the replica is not very lagged. If it is,wait for traffic to die down and for it to catch up. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">I think I'd want a something a bit more specific here. When the primary shuts down it will kick out one last WAL. The filename should be recorded. </pre><blockquote style="color: #000000;" type="cite"><pre wrap="">7. shut down postgres on the replica. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">Before the shutdown make sure that the replicas are waiting on the subsequent log file to appear (note that versions prior to 9.3 skip 00). That means all WAL has been consumed and the primary and replica(s) are in the same state. This is a bit more complex if streaming replication is being used <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>without<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> good old fashionedlog shipping to a backup server and I'm not sure exactly how to go about it. I suppose you could start Postgres in single user mode, commit a transaction, and make sure that transaction gets to the replicas. OTOH, streaming replication (unless it is synchronous) would be crazy without doing WAL backup. Maybe that's just me. <div class="moz-txt-sig">-- - David Steele <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:david@pgmasters.net">david@pgmasters.net</a> </div></pre></div>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: