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. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
