Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: wambacher <wnordmann@gmx.de>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <1401918575233-5806085.post@n5.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <k3g0ay5sh4wg9mas5gge352w.1401916314816@email.android.com>
References: <1401913364183-5806072.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <k3g0ay5sh4wg9mas5gge352w.1401916314816@email.android.com>
Subject: Re: which slony to start?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org

Scott Whitney-3 wrote
> If it's "not production," (and I understand all the nuances of "sort of
> production") why not just 9.3 both of them and use built-in replication?
> What are you trying to accomplish that you feel Slony will do better?

Ok, it's not for commercial use (no company loosing money if it fails), but
i have to do this tasks and would like to have the database online as long
as possible.

- move the database to another system
- reinstall the old system starting from scatch (ubuntu and all apps
including postgresql/postgis)
- upgrade from 9.1 to 9.3

my plan: install 9.3 on new system, move database using slony, reinstall new
system with 9.3, move database back, keep slony alive for fallback. i will
not upgrade the running server to 9.3 without fallback.

ok, you say "do it without slony"

than i have to install 9.1 on the new server, sync databases, rebuild old
server with 9.1, resync back, upgrade new server to 9.3, upgrade
backup-Server to 9.3

so i ask again: which version of slony should i use - if i do it with slony?

Regards
walter


--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/which-slony-to-start-tp5806072p5806085.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - admin mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin