| From: | David Greco <David_Greco(at)harte-hanks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Trouble with replication |
| Date: | 2013-06-06 12:19:46 |
| Message-ID: | 187F6C10D2931A4386EE8E58E13857F6303FC86D@BY2PRD0811MB415.namprd08.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:43 PM
To: David Greco
Cc: John R Pierce; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Trouble with replication
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:23 AM, David Greco <David_Greco(at)harte-hanks(dot)com<mailto:David_Greco(at)harte-hanks(dot)com>> wrote:
On the master or on the slave, or on both? I thought shipping the archived WAL files from the master to the slave did this already?
In your case you need to transfer the WAL files using streaming replication, so you need to set wal_keep_segments to a value high enough on master such as the slave can can up. For reference:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/runtime-config-replication.html
--
Michael
Then what is the purpose to shipping the archived WAL files to the slave? i.e. if wal_keep_segments has to be high enough to cover any replication lag anyways, then should I even bother shipping them over?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Greco | 2013-06-06 12:22:01 | Re: Trouble with replication |
| Previous Message | Colin S | 2013-06-06 11:48:07 | Re: PostgreSQL Synchronous Replication in production |