RE: BUG #16497: old and new pg_controldata WAL segment sizes are invalid or do not match

Dear All,

We have reinstall postgres-12 version but when I run below command  its showing error again.

Please suggest what I do to resolve this issue.

Command:

/usr/pgsql-12/bin/pg_upgrade --old-datadir /var/lib/pgsql/11/data/ --new-datadir /var/lib/pgsql/12/data/ --old-bindir /usr/pgsql-11/bin/ --new-bindir /usr/pgsql-12/bin/ --check

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