| 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 14:17:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1534169834014@dmwebmail.dmwebmail.chezphil.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Adrian Klaver wrote:
> "If you set up a WAL archive that's accessible from the standby, these
> solutions are not required, since the standby can always use the archive
> to catch up provided it retains enough segments. *This is dependent on
> verification that the archiving is working properly. A belt and
> suspenders approach would be to set wal_keep_segments to a value > 0 in
> the event archiving is not properly functioning*"
> "
Adrian, I believe that the suggestion that my issue was the result of
my archiving process not working is not correct.
The quote above does not address the requirement for wal_keep_segments
to be >= 1 even when archiving is functioning correctly.
I will continue to monitor this thread in the hope that others will
confirm my understanding, but otherwise I will bow out now (and file a
bug).
Thanks to all.
Phil.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashu Pachauri | 2018-08-13 14:24:26 | Fwd: is there any adverse effect on DB if I set autovacuum scale factor to zero? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-08-13 14:11:54 | Re: Replication failure, slave requesting old segments |