From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John Lumby <johnlumby(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, pgsql bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14109: pg_rewind fails to update target control file in one scenario |
Date: | 2016-04-27 00:47:49 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTKnqVOEEpTgFVXP-hO6dvzo=xv5G4Ek0E+A1ttLGakPw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:37 PM, John Lumby <johnlumby(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> One way to take care of this class of
>> problems is to use wal_keep_segments. An even better one is called
>> replication slot.
>
> Regarding replication slots -- Actually I do use them (I think it is unsafe to run
> streaming replication without either archiving or a replication slot)
> but even that would still not guarantee success
> if I did not take the precaution of shutting down current primary first before flip.
>
> And .. we discussed this very point in pqsql-general just a month ago --
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/COL131-W804D45E77B0D0FB1EF08B1A3890@phx.gbl
My memory is so short-lived lately... I did not recall that :)
> I did not get any answer to my suggestion in that post but I think it might be useful.
Replication slots are perfectly able to retain WAL segments from a
prior timeline, so I am not sure that this would be much a gain. And
as they can be used as well on standbys you could create/drop slots on
it at regular intervals. Or more simply use a WAL archive.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-04-27 00:58:45 | Re: BUG #14109: pg_rewind fails to update target control file in one scenario |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-04-27 00:45:04 | Re: BUG #14016: Incomplete documentation of IN subquery expression |