From: | "Phil Endecott" <spam_from_pgsql_lists(at)chezphil(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Adrian Klaver" <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Replication failure, slave requesting old segments |
Date: | 2018-08-13 12:08:12 |
Message-ID: | 1534162092902@dmwebmail.dmwebmail.chezphil.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 08/12/2018 02:56 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
>> Anyway. Do others agree that my issue was the result of
>> wal_keep_segments=0 ?
>
> Only as a sub-issue of the slave losing contact with the master. The
> basic problem is maintaining two separate operations, archiving and
> streaming, in sync. If either or some combination of both lose
> synchronization then it is anyone's guess on what is appropriate for
> wal_keep_segments.
Really? I thought the intention was that the system should be
able to recover reliably when the slave reconnects after a
period of downtime, subject only to there being sufficient
network/CPU/disk bandwidth etc. for it to eventually catch up.
If that's not true, I think the docs need an even more extensive
overhaul! Suggestion for the paragraph that I quoted before from
26.2.5:
"If you set up a WAL archive that's accessible from the standby,
it's anyone's guess what is appropriate for wal_keep_segments."
Regards, Phil.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Phil Endecott | 2018-08-13 12:18:45 | Re: Replication failure, slave requesting old segments |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-08-13 12:04:37 | Re: Replication failure, slave requesting old segments |