From: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "German Becker *EXTERN*" <german(dot)becker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Strahinja Kustudic <strahinjak(at)nordeus(dot)com>, "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: archive falling behind |
Date: | 2013-04-26 13:55:37 |
Message-ID: | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B05802F29@ntex2010a.host.magwien.gv.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
German Becker wrote:
> Here is the archive part of the config:
>
> archive_mode = on # allows archiving to be done
> # (change requires restart)
> archive_command = '/var/lib/postgresql/scripts/archive_copy.sh %p %f' # command to use to
> archive a logfile segment
> #archive_timeout = 0 # force a logfile segment switch after this
> # number of seconds; 0 disables
So the problem might be in that script.
> The archive coommand makes a local copy and then it copies to the backup server via ssh. Both copies
> are md5-checked and retried up to 3 times in case of failure.
archive_command should not retry the operation, but rather
return a non-zero return code.
> I have seen under heavy load that some WALs are skipped, some have less size, some are corrupted (i,e,
> the loop fails 3 times).
> I'm not sure about the return value (checking it). What is the expected behaviour of the archiver?
> Will it retry de archive if archive command returns differnt than 0? Will it retain the WAL segment
> until it is succesfuly archived?
See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-ARCHIVING-WAL
archive_command should exit with zero only if the
WAL segment was archived successfully.
PostgreSQL will retry and retain the WAL segment until
archival succeeds.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Hinze | 2013-04-26 15:59:52 | Re: [ADMIN] Simultaneous index creates on different schemas cause deadlock? |
Previous Message | Federico | 2013-04-26 13:53:07 | Re: archive falling behind |