On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:04:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >> > + While a Log-Shipping Standby Server (<xref linkend="warm-standby">) >> > can >> > + be upgraded, the server must be in changed to a primary server to >> > allow >> > + writes, and after the upgrade it cannot be reused as a standby server. >> > + (Running <command>rsync</> after the upgrade allows reuse.) >> >> "in changed"? This sentence makes no sense at all to me. > > Oops. New wording attached with "in" removed: > > the server must be changed to a primary server
Don't we normally talk about "must be promoted to a primary server", not changed? And wouldn't it be good if it also mentions that another good option is to just pg_upgrade the master and rebuild the standby? (Unless that's already mentioned somewhere else). What's the actual usecase for promoting the slave, upgrading it and then *not* using it, which is what I think this paragraph suggests? And I think the sentence about running rsync is extremely vague - run rsync where and how? What are you actually trying to suggest people do? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
