Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on using pg_upgrade

2016-06-15 Thread Glyn Astill
- Original Message - > From: Tory M Blue > To: Jim Nasby > Cc: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" > Sent: Tuesday, 14 June 2016, 22:08 > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on using pg_upgrade > > Right, that's what we do, but then to upgrade, we

Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on using pg_upgrade

2016-06-14 Thread Tory M Blue
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 4/19/16 11:01 PM, Tory M Blue wrote: >> Slon is also starting to not be viable as it takes some indexes over >> 7 >> hours to complete. So this upgrade path seemed to really be nice. >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > If you're standing

Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on using pg_upgrade

2016-06-14 Thread Jim Nasby
On 4/19/16 11:01 PM, Tory M Blue wrote: >> Slon is also starting to not be viable as it takes some indexes over 7 >> hours to complete. So this upgrade path seemed to really be nice. > > > If you're standing up a new replica from scratch on the latest version, I'm > not really sure why that matt

Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on using pg_upgrade

2016-04-19 Thread Tory M Blue
In line Jim On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 3/24/16 12:43 PM, Tory M Blue wrote: >> >> Slon is also starting to not be viable as it takes some indexes over 7 >> hours to complete. So this upgrade path seemed to really be nice. > > > If you're standing up a new replica from

Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on using pg_upgrade

2016-04-03 Thread Jim Nasby
On 3/24/16 12:43 PM, Tory M Blue wrote: Slon is also starting to not be viable as it takes some indexes over 7 hours to complete. So this upgrade path seemed to really be nice. If you're standing up a new replica from scratch on the latest version, I'm not really sure why that matters? Not

Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on using pg_upgrade

2016-03-24 Thread Tory M Blue
Thanks to all that responded I successfully upgraded 800GB DB with pg_upgrade in about 2 hours. This would have taken 2 days to dump/restore. Slon is also starting to not be viable as it takes some indexes over 7 hours to complete. So this upgrade path seemed to really be nice. Not sure how I ca

Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on using pg_upgrade

2016-03-11 Thread Jim Nasby
On 3/4/16 4:58 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 02:27:59PM -0800, Tory M Blue wrote: >If my data is located in /data > >and I link to a new dir in /data1, what actually happens. do I end up with >2 file systems and links and thus am not able to delete or cleanup any old >data, o

Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on using pg_upgrade

2016-03-04 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 02:27:59PM -0800, Tory M Blue wrote: > If my data is located in /data > > and I link to a new dir in /data1, what actually happens. do I end up with > 2 file systems and links and thus am not able to delete or cleanup any old > data, or how does this work? > > Also will t

[PERFORM] Clarification on using pg_upgrade

2016-03-04 Thread Tory M Blue
Howdy Postgres9.2 going to 9.4 CentOS 6.5 So in most of my environments, I use slony and thus use slony replication for my upgrades (Drop/add nodes etc). But I've got a pretty big DB just shy of a TB that is on a single node. A dump restore would take over 48 hours because of index creations et