| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal |
| Date: | 2016-07-08 00:14:00 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jJ3HHSxUSWv0x3RhjdrQH_EPqDKTXOAaOF4op0CoAC9Dw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 July 2016 at 00:48, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On 07/07/2016 01:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:52 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>>> In light of the above, it is perfectly reasonable to require, at least
>>> temporarily, setting up duplicate storage, or another node.
>>>
>>
> pg_upgrade does that, kinda. I'd like to have something better, but
>> in the absence of that, I think it's quite wrong to think about
>> deprecating it, even if we had logical replication fully integrated
>> into core today. Which we by no means do.
>>
>
> I would much rather see more brain power put into pg_upgrade or in place
> upgrades than logical replication (as a upgrade solution).
Why is that?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-07-08 00:47:47 | Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-07-07 23:53:12 | Re: Issue with bgworker, SPI and pgstat_report_stat |