On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > I don't see the "don't modify the user files" behavior changing anytime >> > soon, and it is documented, so I feel pretty confident that those files >> > were not modified on the primary or standby cluster, and are hence the >> > same, or at least as "the same" as they were when they were running the >> > older major version of Postgres. >> > >> > Is that sufficient? >> >> Well, at the very least, you need to guarantee that the standby is >> caught up - i.e. that it replayed all the WAL records that were >> generated on the master before it was shut down for the final time. I >> don't think that telling the user that they must be sure to do that is >> sufficient - you need some kind of built-in safeguard that will >> complain loudly if it's not the case. > > Yes, that would be a problem because the WAL records are deleted by > pg_upgrade. Does a shutdown of the standby not already replay all WAL > logs?
Not if it's an immediate shutdown, and not if it didn't have them all on disk in the first place. Who is to say it's even caught up? > I was originally thinking that we would require users to run pg_upgrade > on the standby, where you need to first switch into master mode. As Jeff says, that doesn't help anything. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers