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>, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Replication failure, slave requesting old segments |
Date: | 2018-08-13 12:18:45 |
Message-ID: | 1534162725842@dmwebmail.dmwebmail.chezphil.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 08/12/2018 03:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> * Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_lists(at)chezphil(dot)org) wrote:
>>> OK. I think this is perhaps a documentation bug, maybe a missing
>>> warning when the master reads its configuration, and maybe (as you say)
>>> a bad default value.
>>
>> If we consider it to be an issue worthy of a change then we should
>> probably just change the default value, and maybe not even allow it to
>> be set lower than '1'.
>>
>
> I would say leave the default at 0 as it leaves no doubt that you are
> performing without a net. A setting of '1' implies you are covered and
> for a fast moving cluster or slow moving one with sufficient downtime
> that would not be the case.
Can you explain how it can fail in the case of a "slow moving cluster with
sufficient downtime"?
It seems to me that if I have correctly understood what happened in this
case then 0, the default, really cannot ever work properly when you have
enabled WAL archiving plus streaming.
> Better to let the end user know this is not
> a simple problem and some thought needs to go into configuration.
I certainly agree that this is "not a simple problem", having read something
like 18,000 words of documentation multiple times and, apparently, still
got it wrong in multiple ways.
Regards, Phil.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-08-13 12:30:50 | Re: Replication failure, slave requesting old segments |
Previous Message | Phil Endecott | 2018-08-13 12:08:12 | Re: Replication failure, slave requesting old segments |