RE: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes areinvalid or do not match
От | Ram Pratap Maurya |
---|---|
Тема | RE: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes areinvalid or do not match |
Дата | |
Msg-id | PS2PR06MB25010951DFA88E524A1935D7F0980@PS2PR06MB2501.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes areinvalid or do not match (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Dear All, any impact of server. If we Can reset manually postgres old version (11) WAL segment size . Regards, Ram Pratap. Lava International Limited. Tel+ 91-120-4637148 -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:bruce@momjian.us] Sent: 19 June 2020 00:00 To: Stephen Frost Cc: Tom Lane; Jeff Janes; Michael Paquier; Ram Pratap Maurya; pgsql-bugs Subject: Re: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes are invalid or do not match On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 02:11:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote: > > 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? > > I think the comment is saying that pg_resetwal will rewrite the > pg_control with a WAL level of minimal and that's the issue and why > the server needs to be brought up with a higher WAL level temporarily, > so that pg_control gets updated, for the new cluster. > > Of course, before pg_upgrade is run, the old cluster would need to be > up and running with a wal_level higher than minimal in order to have > replicas in the first place, but what we're really talking about here > is the new, upgraded, cluster. > > I do think the doc could probably say replica 'or higher'. OK, I will work on that, thanks. -- 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: