News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on How we upgraded our 4TB Postgres database. Parent comment

Re:How we upgraded our 4TB Postgres database by electroly on Tuesday April 19, 2022 @07:55PM (#31090965)
I believe pg_upgrade isn't guaranteed to always work; it's possible they might change the table storage such that it's unreadable in a new version, and pg_upgrade is documented to fail if so. However, I don't think it's ever happened. That may just be an abundance of caution in the documentation. I wonder why the author of this article didn't mention this possibility.

SQL Server is designed to run in a Windows Server Failover Cluster; the SQL Server-side feature is called "Always On availability groups" in an HA configuration. It's a single-master arrangement, you can either have a fully passive secondary (that's what we do) or read-only replicas. The WSFC handles managing quorum, that's what causes the automatic failover as soon as >50% of the nodes are running the new version.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How we upgraded our 4TB Postgres database by aidos on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @02:40AM (#31093557)
For what it's worth, it's worked for upgrading me this far (9.6 -> 13); though I'll be looking to go the logical replication route for the next round.

I suspect the way I'll be setting it up is much the same as what you describe in your WSFC configuration (with a little more manual wrangling, no doubt).

[ Parent | on HN ]