On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2015-01-22 20:54:47 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: >> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:19:33AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: >> > > Or do you - as the text edited in your patch, but not the quote above - >> > > mean to run pg_upgrade just on the primary and then rsync? >> > >> > No, I was going to run it on both, then rsync. >> >> I'm pretty sure this is all a lot easier than you believe it to be. If >> you want to recreate what pg_upgrade does to a cluster then the simplest >> thing to do is rsync before removing any of the hard links. rsync will >> simply recreate the same hard link tree that pg_upgrade created when it >> ran, and update files which were actually changed (the catalog tables). > > I don't understand why that'd be better than simply fixing (yes, that's > imo the correct term) pg_upgrade to retain relfilenodes across the > upgrade. Afaics there's no conflict risk and it'd make the clusters much > more similar, which would be good; independent of rsyncing standbys.
+1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
