pgbasebackup necessary for master slave change?
Hi,
Few days back I had asked if it is needed to to pg_basebackup for
every database update. From John I understood that it is unnecessary
and if the slave is syncing, even if it is catching up, it would be
able to sync without doing pg_basebackup. This is working also for me.
However, for a failover scenario, where a master goes down, and I make
the slave as master, and then when the old master comes back as a
slave again, if I don't take pg_basebackup from the new master, it
cannot follow the new master. This is kind of an overhead. Is there a
way I can make the old master follow the new master without having to
do full backup?
Subhankar Chattopadhyay
Bangalore, India
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay <
subho.atg@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Few days back I had asked if it is needed to to pg_basebackup for
every database update. From John I understood that it is unnecessary
and if the slave is syncing, even if it is catching up, it would be
able to sync without doing pg_basebackup. This is working also for me.However, for a failover scenario, where a master goes down, and I make
the slave as master, and then when the old master comes back as a
slave again, if I don't take pg_basebackup from the new master, it
cannot follow the new master. This is kind of an overhead. Is there a
way I can make the old master follow the new master without having to
do full backup?
Depending on your version and circumstance, pg_rewind may address your
problem.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/app-pgrewind.html
Subhankar Chattopadhyay
Bangalore, India--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
I am on 9.4. Doesn't look like we have it available on 9.4.
Do we have any other option?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay
<subho.atg@gmail.com> wrote:Hi,
Few days back I had asked if it is needed to to pg_basebackup for
every database update. From John I understood that it is unnecessary
and if the slave is syncing, even if it is catching up, it would be
able to sync without doing pg_basebackup. This is working also for me.However, for a failover scenario, where a master goes down, and I make
the slave as master, and then when the old master comes back as a
slave again, if I don't take pg_basebackup from the new master, it
cannot follow the new master. This is kind of an overhead. Is there a
way I can make the old master follow the new master without having to
do full backup?Depending on your version and circumstance, pg_rewind may address your
problem.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/app-pgrewind.htmlSubhankar Chattopadhyay
Bangalore, India--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general--
Best Wishes,
Chris TraversEfficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
--
Subhankar Chattopadhyay
Bangalore, India
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 08/12/2016 11:33, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
Hi,
Few days back I had asked if it is needed to to pg_basebackup for
every database update. From John I understood that it is unnecessary
and if the slave is syncing, even if it is catching up, it would be
able to sync without doing pg_basebackup. This is working also for me.However, for a failover scenario, where a master goes down, and I make
the slave as master, and then when the old master comes back as a
slave again, if I don't take pg_basebackup from the new master, it
cannot follow the new master. This is kind of an overhead. Is there a
way I can make the old master follow the new master without having to
do full backup?
pg_rewind
Subhankar Chattopadhyay
Bangalore, India
--
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
pg_rewind cannot be used as I am on 9.4.
Anything else?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Achilleas Mantzios
<achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2016 11:33, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
Hi,
Few days back I had asked if it is needed to to pg_basebackup for
every database update. From John I understood that it is unnecessary
and if the slave is syncing, even if it is catching up, it would be
able to sync without doing pg_basebackup. This is working also for me.However, for a failover scenario, where a master goes down, and I make
the slave as master, and then when the old master comes back as a
slave again, if I don't take pg_basebackup from the new master, it
cannot follow the new master. This is kind of an overhead. Is there a
way I can make the old master follow the new master without having to
do full backup?pg_rewind
Subhankar Chattopadhyay
Bangalore, India--
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Subhankar Chattopadhyay
Bangalore, India
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay <
subho.atg@gmail.com> wrote:
pg_rewind cannot be used as I am on 9.4.
Anything else?
Upgrade to 9.5 or 9.6? ;-)
This is a known limitation in Postgres that pg_rewind was written to
address.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Achilleas Mantzios
<achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:On 08/12/2016 11:33, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
Hi,
Few days back I had asked if it is needed to to pg_basebackup for
every database update. From John I understood that it is unnecessary
and if the slave is syncing, even if it is catching up, it would be
able to sync without doing pg_basebackup. This is working also for me.However, for a failover scenario, where a master goes down, and I make
the slave as master, and then when the old master comes back as a
slave again, if I don't take pg_basebackup from the new master, it
cannot follow the new master. This is kind of an overhead. Is there a
way I can make the old master follow the new master without having to
do full backup?pg_rewind
Subhankar Chattopadhyay
Bangalore, India--
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general--
Subhankar Chattopadhyay
Bangalore, India--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay
<subho.atg@gmail.com> wrote:pg_rewind cannot be used as I am on 9.4.
Anything else?
Upgrade to 9.5 or 9.6? ;-)
This is a known limitation in Postgres that pg_rewind was written to
address.
FWIW I maintain a version that works on 9.4:
https://github.com/vmware/pg_rewind
And that's battle-proven.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general