| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu |
| Cc: | MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu, pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shreeyansh Dba <shreeyansh2014(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup fails: could not receive data from WAL stream: server closed the connection unexpectedly |
| Date: | 2018-12-04 15:38:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20181204153814.GP3415@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Greetings,
* AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu (AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu) wrote:
> Is there any relation/dependency between status-interval and
> wal_sender_timeot.?
Yes, if pg_basebackup doesn't ping the server with a status interval
within wal_sender_timeout amount of time then the server is going to
think it's disappeared.
> I am asking this because even if I set status-interval for pg_basebackup
> to 1 second( the most frequent feedback) I get the same error:
Sure- if they're both set to 1s, you're likely to still see the issue.
Networks take time and systems can end up being busy, so having such a
very tight timeout is, frankly, unlikely to work out all that well for
you regardless.
You could try setting wal_sender_timeout to 2s or maybe 5s and see if
that works better.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Campbell, Lance | 2018-12-04 19:03:11 | Sequences |
| Previous Message | AYahorau | 2018-12-04 15:29:41 | Re: pg_basebackup fails: could not receive data from WAL stream: server closed the connection unexpectedly |