> 20 февр. 2015 г., в 18:21, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> написал(а): > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:45:08AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> #3 bothered me as well because it was not specific enough. I like what >>> you've added to clarify the procedure. >> >> Good. It took me a while to understand why they have to be in sync --- >> because we are using rsync in size-only-comparison mode, if they are not >> in sync we might update some files whose sizes changed, but not others, >> and the old slave would be broken. The new slave is going to get all >> new files or hard links for user files, so it would be fine, but we >> should be able to fall back to the old slaves, and having them in sync >> allows that. > > Also, since there was concern about the instructions, I am thinking of > applying the patch only to head for 9.5, and then blog about it if > people want to test it.
Am I right that if you are using hot standby with both streaming replication and WAL shipping you do still need to take full backup of master after using pg_upgrade? > > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + Everyone has their own god. + > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- May the force be with you... https://simply.name
