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. -- 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
