On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:13:17PM +0300, Vladimir Borodin wrote:
>
> 20 февр. 2015 г., в 18:21, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> написал(а):
>
> 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.
>
>
> Am I right that if you are using hot standby with both streaming replication
> and WAL shipping you do still need to take full backup of master after using
> pg_upgrade?
No, you would not need to take a full backup if you use these instructions.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +