Hi Andy,
        As you've noticed, the config option is provided separately to each 
slon daemon in your service, so a slon before 2.2.7 isn't going to know about 
the option and so will still run the schema check. We also use a single 
provider cluster, and in our upgrade process, the replicas (slaves) are 
upgraded first. That worked for our upgrade from 2.2.4 (using an alpha version 
of the 2.2.7 changes.)
        The option in the code is a boolean. We should fix the doc.

        Tom    (
        

On 8/31/18, 9:56 AM, "Andy Dossett" <andy.doss...@btinternet.com> wrote:

    I have carried out a basic test with the master at 2.2.7, with 
enable_version_check ‘off’, and a slave at 2.2.3. The slave still checks 
versions.
    
    My conclusion is that this option only has any value when master and slave 
are at, or above, 2.2.7. The only way I can see it working for older versions 
is if the master holds the version number of the slave and ‘lies’ by reporting 
the stored version number when queried by the slave.
    
    Here’s some snippets from the logs;
    
    2.2.7 (master)
    2018-08-31 14:00:05 BST [20062] CONFIG main: slon version 2.2.7 starting up
    2018-08-31 14:00:05 BST [20063] CONFIG main: Boolean option 
enable_version_check = 0
    
    2.2.3 (slave)
    2018-08-31 14:09:17 BST [10640] CONFIG version for "host=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 
dbname=posdb user=postgres port=5432 password=abcdefg" is 90603
    2018-08-31 14:09:17 BST [10640] ERROR  Slony-I schema version is 2.2.7
    2018-08-31 14:09:17 BST [10640] ERROR  please upgrade Slony-I schema to 
version 2.2.3
    2018-08-31 14:09:17 BST [10640] ERROR  Slony-I module version is 2.2.7
    2018-08-31 14:09:17 BST [10640] ERROR  please upgrade Slony-I shared module 
to version 2.2.3
    2018-08-31 14:09:17 BST [10640] ERROR  remoteListenThread_1: 
db_checkSchemaVersion() failed
    
    A few other things from the log.
    
    Both 2.2.3 and 2.2.7 warn that three config options are missing, yet 
complain that those same options are present! Note, no line break for the ‘not 
found’ warning.
    2018-08-31 14:00:05 BST [0] WARN   conf option sync_max_rowsize not 
found2018-08-31 14:00:05 BST [0] WARN   unrecognized configuration parameter 
"sync_max_rowsize"
    2018-08-31 14:00:05 BST [0] WARN   conf option sync_max_largemem not 
found2018-08-31 14:00:05 BST [0] WARN   unrecognized configuration parameter 
"sync_max_largemem"
    2018-08-31 14:00:05 BST [0] WARN   conf option desired_sync_time not 
found2018-08-31 14:00:05 BST [0] WARN   unrecognized configuration parameter 
"desired_sync_time"
    
    The log says that enable_version_check is a boolean option – the 
documentation says it is integer.
    
    Should the password in the reporting of the connection string be obfuscated?
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Steve Singer <st...@ssinger.info> 
    Sent: 27 August 2018 02:28
    To: andy.doss...@btinternet.com
    Cc: slony1-general@lists.slony.info
    Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] enable_version_check
    
    On Fri, 24 Aug 2018, andy.doss...@btinternet.com wrote:
    
    > Hi
    > 
    > We are currently running our master server on SuSE 10 with Postgres 
    > 9.3 and Slony 2.2.3. Our slaves are running on CentOS, also with Postgres 
9.3 and Slony 2.2.3.
    > 
    > We are running a project to upgrade the master to SuSE 12 and Postgres 
    > 9.6. Unfortunately Slony 2.2.3 would not install so we went up to 
    > 2.2.6. Unfortunately this means that we have to upgrade the slaves to 
2.2.6 as well.
    > 
    > However, 2.2.7 has just been released which includes the 
enable_version_check feature.
    > 
    > If we went up to 2.2.7 on the master and turned version checking off, 
    > would this enable master and slaves to replicate, or would the version 
checking in the slave prevent it?
    > 
    > If turning off version checking does allow replication, are 2.2.3 and 
2.2.7 compatible with each other?
    
    You should test it but there is a good chance data replication will work 
between them.  Just looking at the release notes I don't see anything that 
would obviously break data replication. Configuration events, including 
failovers  and DDL replication did have some changes though.
    
    
    
    > 
    > Thanks
    > 
    >  Andy
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Slony1-general mailing list
    Slony1-general@lists.slony.info
    http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
    

_______________________________________________
Slony1-general mailing list
Slony1-general@lists.slony.info
http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general

Reply via email to