Re: Barman WAL size issue

Hi Marco,

Backup process complete successfully. Now, WAL Size: 3.3 GiB. Everything
seems fine.

Thank you again for your helps.

Regards,
Gunce

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Günce Kaya <guncekaya14(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi Marco,
>
> Sorry for delay. I just want to see what's gonna happen in next backup
> process. We use archiving via archive_command that includes rsync. I
> checked log file and I did not faced any error about archive_command or
> rsync process. Current backup still continuous. Backup process takes long
> time and I'm gonna look at barman list-backup command and I'll share if
> still continued this problem.
>
> Thank you for your helps.
>
> Regards,
> Gunce
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Marco Nietz <pg(at)mnietz(dot)de> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> which wal method are you using? Wal Streaming or archiving by using
>> archive_command?
>>
>> In case of streaming, you could check if receive-wal process is running
>> on the backup host and connected to the barman replication slot on the
>> postgresql server.
>>
>> In the other case, check your postgresql logfile if you have errors about
>> the archiving.
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Marco
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 28.11.2017 um 11:51 schrieb Günce Kaya:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There are some cron which execute insert, update statement daily. It's
>>> not possible nothing happened after previous backup. So, do you have
>>> another idea about that?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Gunce
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Shreeyansh Dba <
>>> shreeyansh2014(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:shreeyansh2014(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Günce Kaya <guncekaya14(at)gmail(dot)com
>>> <mailto:guncekaya14(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We use Barman for backup. I checked latest backup as to whether
>>> having latest backup is success and I saw WAL size is 0 B.
>>>
>>> -bash-4.1$ barman list-backup dbalpha
>>> dbalpha 20171127T190002 - Tue Nov 28 09:43:40 2017 - Size: 326.0
>>> GiB - WAL Size: 0 B ....
>>>
>>> I think it's not normal. Any help would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​This is quite normal scenario, I suspect as not many transactions
>>> have happened since its previous backup was taken which resulted in
>>> WAL size to 0 B​
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Gunce Kaya
>>>
>>> Linkedin <https://tr.linkedin.com/in/guncekaya> - Twitter
>>> <https://twitter.com/gguncesi> - Blog
>>> <http://www.guncekaya.blogspot.com.tr/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- http://www.shreeyansh.com <http://www.shreeyansh.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gunce Kaya
>>>
>>> Linkedin <https://tr.linkedin.com/in/guncekaya> - Twitter <
>>> https://twitter.com/gguncesi> - Blog <http://www.guncekaya.blogspot
>>> .com.tr/>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gunce Kaya
>
> Linkedin <https://tr.linkedin.com/in/guncekaya> - Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/gguncesi> - Blog
> <http://www.guncekaya.blogspot.com.tr/>
>

--
Gunce Kaya

Linkedin <https://tr.linkedin.com/in/guncekaya> - Twitter
<https://twitter.com/gguncesi> - Blog
<http://www.guncekaya.blogspot.com.tr/>