pg.ddx.io pgsql-admin@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedUpgrading to 9.4 to get replication slots (was Re: Streaming replication and WAL archiving)
4+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Upgrading to 9.4 to get replication slots (was Re: Streaming replication and WAL archiving)
@ 2015-02-11 14:45 David F. Skoll <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: David F. Skoll @ 2015-02-11 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-admin
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:37:46 -0500
John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've had some issues with pg_upgrade and 9.4. For my test systems, as
> I didn't really have the resources to diagnose what was going on, I
> just used a pg_dumpall to unload the 9.3.3 instance and then just ran
> psql to load the output from pg_dumpall.
Dump/restore is not an option for me. It would mean many hours of
downtime which is unacceptable. I can barely get away with two hours
of downtime and that would have to be in the wee hours of Sunday
morning. People tend to get very cranky when their email stops flowing!
> The more wonderful part of installing different minor versions of
> postgresql, is that most O/S packages put the binaries and the
> default data directories in slightly different areas, so they can
> co-exist, just not necessarily run at the same time without
> specifying different connect ports.
I use Debian and the Debian packages are very good at allowing concurrent
installation of different versions, so that's a plus.
Regards,
David.
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Upgrading to 9.4 to get replication slots (was Re: Streaming replication and WAL archiving)
@ 2015-02-11 15:04 Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>
parent: David F. Skoll <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Scott Ribe @ 2015-02-11 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David F. Skoll <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>; +Cc: pgsql-admin
On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:45 AM, David F. Skoll <dfs@roaringpenguin.com> wrote:
>
> Dump/restore is not an option for me. It would mean many hours of
> downtime which is unacceptable. I can barely get away with two hours
> of downtime and that would have to be in the wee hours of Sunday
> morning. People tend to get very cranky when their email stops flowing!
I don't remember the beginning of the thread. Did you consider Slony? It's more configuration, but it would reduce downtime to almost 0.
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com
http://www.elevated-dev.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Upgrading to 9.4 to get replication slots (was Re: Streaming replication and WAL archiving)
@ 2015-02-11 15:40 David F. Skoll <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
parent: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: David F. Skoll @ 2015-02-11 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-admin
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:04:43 -0700
Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com> wrote:
> I don't remember the beginning of the thread. Did you consider Slony?
> It's more configuration, but it would reduce downtime to almost 0.
We have looked at Slony in the past, but AFAIK it cannot replicate
tables that lack a primary key and we have a few of those. Also
AFAIK, slony requires an initial sync of the databases with
dump/restore. Finally our database is quite busy and very
write-heavy, so I worry about the performance impact of all the Slony
triggers.
Regards,
David.
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Upgrading to 9.4 to get replication slots (was Re: Streaming replication and WAL archiving)
@ 2015-02-11 17:02 Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>
parent: David F. Skoll <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Guillaume Lelarge @ 2015-02-11 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David F. Skoll <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>; +Cc: pgsql-admin
Le 11 févr. 2015 16:42, "David F. Skoll" <dfs@roaringpenguin.com> a écrit :
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:04:43 -0700
> Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't remember the beginning of the thread. Did you consider Slony?
> > It's more configuration, but it would reduce downtime to almost 0.
>
> We have looked at Slony in the past, but AFAIK it cannot replicate
> tables that lack a primary key and we have a few of those.
This is a good reason to avoid slony but...
> Also
> AFAIK, slony requires an initial sync of the databases with
> dump/restore. Finally our database is quite busy and very
> write-heavy, so I worry about the performance impact of all the Slony
> triggers.
>
This is definitely wrong. Slony can do the initial sync by itself (ie
without dump/restore).
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-02-11 17:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-02-11 14:45 Upgrading to 9.4 to get replication slots (was Re: Streaming replication and WAL archiving) David F. Skoll <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
2015-02-11 15:04 ` Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>
2015-02-11 15:40 ` David F. Skoll <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
2015-02-11 17:02 ` Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox