On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:45:08AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > #3 bothered me as well because it was not specific enough. I like what
> > you've added to clarify the procedure.
>
> Good. It took me a while to understand why they have to be in sync ---
> because we are using rsync in size-only-comparison mode, if they are not
> in sync we might update some files whose sizes changed, but not others,
> and the old slave would be broken. The new slave is going to get all
> new files or hard links for user files, so it would be fine, but we
> should be able to fall back to the old slaves, and having them in sync
> allows that.
Also, since there was concern about the instructions, I am thinking of
applying the patch only to head for 9.5, and then blog about it if
people want to test it.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +