Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Alban Hertroys <alban.hertroys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Our current development database server is running a bit low on diskspace, >> so I dropped an old but rather large database with the intention of >> claiming back some space. However, the space remains claimed. >> This server was upgraded from PG10 to PG11 using pg_upgrade's --link >> option. > > If you used --link, then all the files would remain hard-linked from both > the old and new database directories. You've got to remove them from the > old DB directory as well. > > There's not really any point in keeping around the source DB directory > once you've completed a --link migration. Starting the postmaster in > the old DB directory would be disastrous because the files are > inconsistent from its standpoint once the new postmaster has modified > them at all. (In fact, I think pg_upgrade intentionally makes the old > directory non-runnable to prevent that error.) So you might as well Yeah. IIRC, it renames control to pg_control.old to avoid accidental startup. > just "rm -rf ./10", not only its biggest subdirectory. > > regards, tom lane > > -- Jerry Sievers Postgres DBA/Development Consulting e: postgres.consulting@xxxxxxxxxxx
