From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Victor Sudakov <vas(at)sibptus(dot)ru>, pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A streaming replica catching up |
Date: | 2021-04-22 07:20:43 |
Message-ID: | 8ec1143e5f1e45714b415076b3ad7533346e2734.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 10:16 +0700, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> After a streaming standby has been down for a time, I know of two
> options for it to catch up with the master:
>
> 1. The replica can fetch all the necessary WAL records via the
> replication protocol from the master (unless max_slot_wal_keep_size is
> not the default -1, all the required WAL archives should be available from
> the master).
>
> 2. The replica can be provided with a restore_command and will fetch
> all WAL files from the WAL archive before starting streaming WAL from
> the master.
>
> Which is the preferred way?
>
> Of course if max_slot_wal_keep_size is limited, the second options seems
> the only safe one.
>
> OTOH, if the master does not write to a WAL archive, only the first
> option is left to us.
Both methods are equally feasible. Which one you choose depends on
your situation, just as you describe in the last two sentences.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Victor Sudakov | 2021-04-22 08:43:23 | Re: A streaming replica catching up |
Previous Message | Victor Sudakov | 2021-04-22 03:16:42 | A streaming replica catching up |