Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743FD6341F3 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:17:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75242-01-2 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:17:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D3A5A635B54 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:17:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from source ([74.125.92.146]) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS8YGoRup0WanOczwbXAWU3uoE7deZs4M@postini.com; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:17:06 PDT Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so138770qwk.46 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.23.66 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:17:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100414174257.GB1699@aart.is.rice.edu> References: <4BC5FB73.9@setonhome.org> <20100414174257.GB1699@aart.is.rice.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:17:03 -0400 Received: by 10.224.106.4 with SMTP id v4mr2765029qao.36.1271269024455; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: Migrating from 8.3 to 8.4 on the same server From: Scott Mead To: Kenneth Marshall Cc: Lewis Kapell , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f83a5b89df7ee04843662b7 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.899 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201004/175 X-Sequence-Number: 34269 --00c09f83a5b89df7ee04843662b7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Kenneth Marshall wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:29:23PM -0400, Lewis Kapell wrote: > > In the documentation under the heading "Migration Between Releases" we > > read: > > > > < create > > a slave server with the updated version of PostgreSQL. The slave can be > on > > the same computer or a different computer. [...] Such a switch-over > results > > in only several seconds of downtime for an upgrade. >> > > > > In the section "Warm Standby Servers for High Availability" it says: > > > > << For testing purposes, it is possible to run both primary and standby > > servers on the same system. >> > > > > Although this section does not use the term Point-In-Time Recovery, I > > understand this is what it refers to. Could the WAL/PITR method then be > > used to upgrade from 8.3 to 8.4 on the same server and avoid having the > > significant downtime of dump/restore? > > > > If so, I understand the two servers would have to run on different ports. > > Are there any other issues/traps to be aware of? > > > > -- > > > > Thank you, > > > > Lewis Kapell > > Computer Operations > > Seton Home Study School > > > I believe that the server versions must be the same in PITR so > you cannot use it to upgrade. > Exactly, remember, one of the most important steps in PITR is the 'base' backup. Your PITR slaves uses the same data files as its starting point as the master. Since those aren't upgradeable (except in a few cases with pg_migrator) you're really out. Even if you did get pg_migrator to upgrade the base files, I wouldn't use them in a PITR setup though. I'm not 100% sure if it changed or not, but I would assume that the WAL record format changed from version to version. --Scott > > Cheers, > Ken > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin > --00c09f83a5b89df7ee04843662b7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Kenneth Mar= shall <ktm@rice.edu> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:29:23PM -0400, Lewis Kapell wr= ote:
> In the documentation under the heading "Migration Between Release= s" we
> read:
>
> <<It is also possible to use replication methods, such as Slony,= to create
> a slave server with the updated version of PostgreSQL. The slave can b= e on
> the same computer or a different computer. [...] Such a switch-over re= sults
> in only several seconds of downtime for an upgrade. >>
>
> In the section "Warm Standby Servers for High Availability" = it says:
>
> << For testing purposes, it is possible to run both primary and = standby
> servers on the same system. >>
>
> Although this section does not use the term Point-In-Time Recovery, I<= br> > understand this is what it refers to. =A0Could the WAL/PITR method the= n be
> used to upgrade from 8.3 to 8.4 on the same server and avoid having th= e
> significant downtime of dump/restore?
>
> If so, I understand the two servers would have to run on different por= ts.
> Are there any other issues/traps to be aware of?
>
> --
>
> Thank you,
>
> Lewis Kapell
> Computer Operations
> Seton Home Study School
>
I believe that the server versions must be the same in PITR so
you cannot use it to upgrade.

=A0=A0Exa= ctly, remember, one of the most important steps in PITR is the 'base= 9; backup. =A0Your PITR slaves uses the same data files as its starting poi= nt as the master. =A0Since those aren't upgradeable (except in a few ca= ses with pg_migrator) you're really out. =A0Even if you did get pg_migr= ator to upgrade the base files, I wouldn't use them in a PITR setup tho= ugh. =A0I'm not 100% sure if it changed or not, but I would assume that= the WAL record format changed from version to version.

--Scott
=A0

Cheers,
Ken

--00c09f83a5b89df7ee04843662b7--