My box upgraded postgresql from 9.4.8 to 9.5.3 when doing a full
version upgrade (Fedora 23 --> 24).
I have now :
/db/pgsal/data > initialized with 9.5, with postgresql.conf and
pg_hab.conf from 9.4
/db/pgsql/data.old > the old one from 9.4
/usr/lib64/pgsql/postgresql-9.4/bin which comes
arnaud gaboury writes:
> My box upgraded postgresql from 9.4.8 to 9.5.3 when doing a full
> version upgrade (Fedora 23 --> 24).
So I assume you're using the Fedora-supplied RPMs, not the PGDG ones?
(I'm not real sure, but I think the upgrade process would not have
chosen to replace non-Fedora RP
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> arnaud gaboury writes:
>> My box upgraded postgresql from 9.4.8 to 9.5.3 when doing a full
>> version upgrade (Fedora 23 --> 24).
>
> So I assume you're using the Fedora-supplied RPMs, not the PGDG ones?
>
> (I'm not real sure, but I think the up
arnaud gaboury writes:
> Ok. With the data from my 9-4, i.e /db/pgsql/data, and with
> postgresql.service stopped.
> # postgresql-setup --upgrade
> * Upgrading database.
> ERROR: pg_upgrade tool failed
> ERROR: Upgrade failed.
> * See /var/lib/pgsql/upgrade_postgresql.log for details.
> # cat
On 07/10/2016 03:13 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
My box upgraded postgresql from 9.4.8 to 9.5.3 when doing a full
version upgrade (Fedora 23 --> 24).
I have now :
/db/pgsal/data > initialized with 9.5, with postgresql.conf and
pg_hab.conf from 9.4
/db/pgsql/data.old > the old one from 9.4
Hi Franciso, My comments below inline
-Original Message-
From: Francisco Olarte [mailto:fola...@peoplecall.com]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 3:07 PM
To: Prashanth Adiyodi
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Where clause in pg_dump: need help
1.- CCing to the list ( rememb
Hi all,
There will be a network maintenance at the company where my servers are...
I've got one master and one slave server, running PostgreSQL 9.2.
As the network will be down, the internet won't be working as well as the
intranet. Both servers won't be able to communicate each other. Not by
st
On 7/10/2016 2:19 PM, Patrick B wrote:
1. When the connection comes back, will the master and slave work as
expected? The streaming replication should be ok?
as long as you have sufficient WAL available it should recover fine.
you might have to restart the slave to get it to reconnect.
2.
On 07/10/2016 02:19 PM, Patrick B wrote:
Hi all,
There will be a network maintenance at the company where my servers are...
I've got one master and one slave server, running PostgreSQL 9.2.
As the network will be down, the internet won't be working as well as
the intranet. Both servers won't b
Am 10.07.2016 um 23:19 schrieb Patrick B:
Hi all,
There will be a network maintenance at the company where my servers are...
I've got one master and one slave server, running PostgreSQL 9.2.
As the network will be down, the internet won't be working as well as
the intranet. Both servers won
On 7/10/2016 2:42 PM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
1. When the connection comes back, will the master and slave work as
expected? The streaming replication should be ok?
if the master holds all needed WAL's there should be no problem.
You can ensure that with wal_keep_segments, or, in newer versio
thanks guys.. thanks for all the comments...
I'm not shipping the wal_files into master, I actually ship them into slave
and another backup server as well.
So I'll have to change my archive_command then :)
Thanks!
archive_command = 'cp %p /var/lib/pgsql/archive/%f'
That would be ok right guys?
I will also setup wal_keep_segments to 512
On 07/10/2016 04:28 PM, Patrick B wrote:
archive_command = 'cp %p /var/lib/pgsql/archive/%f'
This would be where?
And does the corresponding restore_command point to the same place?
That would be ok right guys?
I will also setup wal_keep_segments to 512
The WAL segments kept would be d
2016-07-11 12:18 GMT+12:00 Adrian Klaver :
> On 07/10/2016 04:28 PM, Patrick B wrote:
>
>> archive_command = 'cp %p /var/lib/pgsql/archive/%f'
>>
>
> This would be where?
>
master server
>
> And does the corresponding restore_command point to the same place?
yes.. the slaves have the restore_
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Prashanth Adiyodi wrote:
> 1.- You have a backup with a series of tables which get inserted WITH a
> timestamp.
> Adi-The series of tables may or may not have timestamp
>
Then I think you cannot do what you want using only built-in PostgreSQL
capabilities. Met
If the master server can't send the wal_files through the slaves, shouldn't
the wal_files be in "background" waiting to be delivered?
Otherwise what's the purpose of them? If a network fails I'd loose those
files?
oh ok.. got it..
wal_keep_segments = To prevent the primary server from removing the
WAL segments required for the standby server before shipping them, set
the minimum number of segments retained in the pg_xlog directory
so it would be ok just by increasing that parameter, right? Once the
serve
On 7/10/2016 4:28 PM, Patrick B wrote:
archive_command = 'cp %p /var/lib/pgsql/archive/%f'
That would be ok right guys?
normally, you want to ship your WAL archives to a NFS server or
something similar, which the master and all the slaves can read.
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in sa
2016-07-11 15:48 GMT+12:00 John R Pierce :
> On 7/10/2016 4:28 PM, Patrick B wrote:
>
>>
>> archive_command = 'cp %p /var/lib/pgsql/archive/%f'
>>
>>
>> That would be ok right guys?
>>
>>
>
> normally, you want to ship your WAL archives to a NFS server or something
> similar, which the master and
On 7/10/2016 8:51 PM, Patrick B wrote:
what if the network goes down?
that WAL server could be located in the same data center as the master
database server. if your local area network goes down, well, you're
probably in a world of hurt.
if the wide area network is mission critical, it wou
On 07/10/2016 07:17 PM, Patrick B wrote:
If the master server can't send the wal_files through the slaves,
shouldn't the wal_files be in "background" waiting to be delivered?
Short version, yes, assuming you are talking about archiving the WAL
files somewhere and assuming there is sufficient
2016-07-08 20:58 GMT+02:00 John R Pierce :
> On 7/8/2016 11:52 AM, Paul Tilles - NOAA Federal wrote:
>
>> I am currently running Version 9.3.10 of postgres with RHEL 6. I am
>> going to upgrade my O/S soon to RHEL 7. Do I need to upgrade to version
>> 9.4.x of postgres?
>>
>
> was 9.3 installed f
23 matches
Mail list logo
