From: | Toby Corkindale <toby(dot)corkindale(at)strategicdata(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | John DeSoi <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp() sometimes reports unlikely, very large delays |
Date: | 2017-03-24 03:03:15 |
Message-ID: | 679631248.285932.1490324595264.JavaMail.zimbra@strategicdata.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
----- Original Message -----
> > On Mar 22, 2017, at 8:06 PM, Toby Corkindale
> > <toby(dot)corkindale(at)strategicdata(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> >
> > My best guess for what is going on is:
> > - There has been no activity for hours or days, and so the oldest replayed
> > transaction on the slave is genuinely quite old.
> > - Something has happened on the master that causes its
> > pg_current_xlog_location() to be updated, but not in a way that is sent to
> > the
> > slave until the end of a long-running transaction.
> >
> >
> > Could anyone suggest how to do this in a manner that avoids the problem?
>
> Are you using streaming replication or only WAL archiving? If you are not
> streaming the archive command does not send the file until it is full (16MB,
> if I recall correctly). To address this, you can change the archive_timeout
> setting to ensure the WAL file is sent at some interval even if it is not
> full.
Apologies, I should have mentioned. We're using streaming replication.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-03-24 04:03:53 | Re: Lag in asynchronous replication |
Previous Message | John DeSoi | 2017-03-24 03:01:59 | Re: pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp() sometimes reports unlikely, very large delays |