On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:13:17PM +0300, Vladimir Borodin wrote: > > 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?
No, you would not need to take a full backup if you use these instructions. -- 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
