Re: dropdb breaks replication?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lonni J Friedman <netllama(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Edson Richter <edsonrichter(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: dropdb breaks replication?
Date: 2012-10-31 18:34:19
Message-ID: 14197.1351708459@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Lonni J Friedman <netllama(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Edson Richter
> <edsonrichter(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> May the cause not having enough segments (currently 80) for dropdb command?
>> Is dropdb logged in transaction log page-by-page excluded?

> I can't read portugese(?), but i think the gist of the error is that
> the WAL segment was already removed before the slave could consume it.
> I'm guessing that you aren't keeping enough of them, and dropping the
> database generated a huge volume which flushed out the old ones before
> they could get consumed by your slave.

dropdb generates one, not very large, WAL record saying "go rm -rf this
directory". So sheer WAL volume is not the correct explanation. It's
possible though that the slave spent long enough executing the rm -rf
to fall behind the master.

In any case, it should have been able to catch up automatically if WAL
archiving was configured properly.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Edson Richter 2012-10-31 18:34:48 Re: dropdb breaks replication?
Previous Message Mike Christensen 2012-10-31 18:25:26 Re: Boolean type storage format