Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segment size
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segment size |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 5018.1510614544@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segment size (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segmentsize
Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segment size |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Even if that's the case, I fail to see why it'd be a good idea to have
>> any sort of pg_upgrade integration here. We should make pg_resetwal's
>> checks for this good enough, and not conflate something unrelated with
>> pg_upgrade goals.
> Both positions can be defended. Note that some users like to have the
> upgrade experience within one single command do as much as possible if
> possible, and this may include the possibility to switch segment size
> to make the tool more friendly. I definitely agree with your point to
> make the low-level magic happen in pg_resetwal though. Having
> pg_upgrade call that at will could be argued afterwards.
FWIW, I agree with Andres' position here. I think the charter of
pg_upgrade is to duplicate the old cluster as closely as it can,
not to modify its configuration. A close analogy is that it does not
attempt to upgrade extension versions while migrating the cluster.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: