On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Vladimir Borodin <r...@simply.name> wrote: > > 8 июня 2017 г., в 17:03, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov > <dsarafanni...@yandex.ru> wrote: > > > Why didn't rsync made the copies on master and replica same? > > > Because rsync was running with —size-only flag. > > > IIUC the situation, the new WAL and updated pg_control file has been > copied, but not updated data files due to which the WAL has not been > replayed on replicas? If so, why the pg_control file is copied, it's > size shouldn't have changed? > > > Because on master pg_upgrade moves $prefix/9.5/data/global/pg_control to > $prefix/9.5/data/global/pg_control.old and creates new > $prefix/9.6/data/global/pg_control without making hardlink. When running > rsync from master to replica rsync sees $prefix/9.6/data/global/pg_control > on master and checks if it is a hardlink. Since it is not a hardlink and > $prefix/9.6/data/global/pg_control does not exist on replica rsync copies > it. For data files the logic is different since they are hardlinks, > corresponding files exist on replica and they are the same size. >
Okay, in that case, I guess it is better to run Analyze on master after the upgrade is complete (including an upgrade for replicas). If you are worried about the performance of read-only replicas till the time Analyze on the master in completed, you might want to use --analyze-in-stages of vaccumdb and or use (-j njobs) along with it to parallelize the operation. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
