Re: Using pg_upgrade on log-shipping standby servers
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Using pg_upgrade on log-shipping standby servers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEyOJLunCTg4Z--6wBekFY72KvZAVSHk2hqnKdL5OeEs6A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Using pg_upgrade on log-shipping standby servers (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Using pg_upgrade on log-shipping standby servers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:04:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >> > + While a Log-Shipping Standby Server (<xref linkend="warm-standby">) can >> > + be upgraded, the server must be in changed to a primary server to allow >> > + writes, and after the upgrade it cannot be reused as a standby server. >> > + (Running <command>rsync</> after the upgrade allows reuse.) >> >> "in changed"? This sentence makes no sense at all to me. > > Oops. New wording attached with "in" removed: > > the server must be changed to a primary server Don't we normally talk about "must be promoted to a primary server", not changed? And wouldn't it be good if it also mentions that another good option is to just pg_upgrade the master and rebuild the standby? (Unless that's already mentioned somewhere else). What's the actual usecase for promoting the slave, upgrading it and then *not* using it, which is what I think this paragraph suggests? And I think the sentence about running rsync is extremely vague - run rsync where and how? What are you actually trying to suggest people do? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: