On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 1:50 PM Nikolay Samokhvalov <n...@postgres.ai> wrote: > Does this make sense or I'm missing something and the current docs describe a > reliable process? (As I said, we have deviated from the process, to involve > logical replication, so I'm not 100% sure I'm right suspecting the original > procedure in having standby corruption risks.)
I'm very suspicious about this section of the documentation. It doesn't explain why --size-only is used or why --no-inc-recursive is used. > > 9. Prepare for standby server upgrades > > If you are upgrading standby servers using methods outlined in section Step > > 11, verify that the old standby servers are caught up by running > > pg_controldata against the old primary and standby clusters. Verify that > > the “Latest checkpoint location” values match in all clusters. (There will > > be a mismatch if old standby servers were shut down before the old primary > > or if the old standby servers are still running.) Also, make sure wal_level > > is not set to minimal in the postgresql.conf file on the new primary > > cluster. > > – admitting that there might be mismatch. But if there is mismatch, rsync > --size-only is not going to help synchronize properly, right? I think the idea is that you shouldn't use the procedure in this case. But honestly I don't think it's probably a good idea to use this procedure at all. It's not clear enough under what circumstances, if any, it's safe to use, and there's not really any way to know if you've done it correctly. You couldn't pay me enough to recommend this procedure to anyone. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
