Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:06:32 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Clarification in pg10's
 pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)
Message-ID: <20170913030632.GF6766@momjian.us>
References: <20170912233840.GS4628@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <VisenaEmail.6d.81d066079b42c9ec.15e787c1bfc@tc7-visena>
 <20170912235415.GT4628@tamriel.snowman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170912235415.GT4628@tamriel.snowman.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 07:54:15PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Andreas,
> 
> * Andreas Joseph Krogh (andreas@visena.com) wrote:
> > I have to ask; Why not run pg_upgrade on standby, after verifying that it's in 
> > sync with primary and promoting it to primary if necessary and then making it 
> > standby again after pg_upgrade is finished?
> 
> I don't think that we could be guaranteed that the catalog tables would
> be the same on the replica as on the primary if they were actually
> created by pg_upgrade.

FYI, the other problem is that standby can't go into write mode or it
would diverge from the primary.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +


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