On 09/01/2015 08:46 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
On 09/01/2015 07:00 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 06:56:11PM -0500, Andy Colson wrote:
I also added a mention that rsync, not pg_upgrade, will be run on the
standbys. You can see all the results of the patch here:
http://momjia
On 09/01/2015 07:00 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 06:56:11PM -0500, Andy Colson wrote:
I also added a mention that rsync, not pg_upgrade, will be run on the
standbys. You can see all the results of the patch here:
http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/pgupgrade.html
Thanks.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 06:56:11PM -0500, Andy Colson wrote:
> >I also added a mention that rsync, not pg_upgrade, will be run on the
> >standbys. You can see all the results of the patch here:
> >
> > http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/pgupgrade.html
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
>
> Sweet, I'm glad I stoppe
On 09/01/2015 04:09 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 09:45:50AM -0500, Andy Colson wrote:
I think we should add a step 6.5 (before step 7 Stop both servers) with
something like:
If you are upgrading both a primary and standby, then we need to make sure the
standby is caught up
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 09:45:50AM -0500, Andy Colson wrote:
> I think we should add a step 6.5 (before step 7 Stop both servers) with
> something like:
>
> If you are upgrading both a primary and standby, then we need to make sure
> the standby is caught up.
> If you are wal shipping then on pr
I think we should add a step 6.5 (before step 7 Stop both servers) with
something like:
If you are upgrading both a primary and standby, then we need to make sure the
standby is caught up.
If you are wal shipping then on primary run: select pg_switch_xlog();
shut down primary
before you shut do
I finished running pg_upgrade on the primary, so far so good, and now I'm at
step 9.5 (Verify).
On the primary I see:
root@test1:/pub/pg95# /usr/local/pg95/bin/pg_controldata -D /pub/pg95|grep "Latest
check"
Latest checkpoint location: 1D2/3628
I cannot run pg93 pg_controldata be
Andy Colson wrote:
> On a side note, I'm confusing myself by the step numbers. There's two step
> 7's. Can we renumber the step 9 sub steps to be 9.1, 9.2, etc?
I've had this lying about for a while, which does more or less what you
want, numbering the substeps "a, b, c" instead of "1, 2, 3".
