On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:22:27AM -0400, Scott Mead wrote: > That being said, it doesn't really provide a back-out plan. The beauty of > replication is that you can halt the upgrade at any point if need be and cut > your (hopefully small) losses. If you use -k, you are all in. Sure, you could > setup a new standby, stop traffic, upgrade whichever node you'd like (using > -k) > and still have the other ready in the event of total catastrophe. More often > than not, I see DBAs and sysads lead the conversation with "well, postgres > can't replicate from one version to another, so instead.... " followed by a > fast-glazing of management's eyes and a desire to buy a 'commercial > database'.
I agree, but I am not sure how to improve it. The big complaint I have heard is that once you upgrade and open up writes on the upgraded server, you can't re-apply those writes to the old server if you need to fall back to the old server. I also don't see how to improve that either. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
