Re: pg_basebackup, requested WAL has already been removed

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>
Cc: Lonni J Friedman <netllama(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup, requested WAL has already been removed
Date: 2013-05-10 17:06:36
Message-ID: CABUevEyKRO-fTKD_D_7JLRVdRbGtfsZczXhCjS3E5Him+wxOTQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 May 2013, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
>
>> Its definitely not a bug. You need to set/increase wal_keep_segments
>> to a value that ensures that they aren't recycled faster than the time
>> required to complete the base backup (plus some buffer).
>
>
> But I thought that wal_keep_segments is not needed for the streaming regime
> ( "--xlog-method=stream") And the documentation
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/app-pgbasebackup.html
> only mentions wal_keep_segments when talking about --xlog-method=fetch.

It's not a bug in the software - this will happen if the background
stream in pg_basebackup cannot keep up, and that's normal. It works
the same way as a regular standby in that if it's unable to keep up it
will eventually fall so far behind that it can't recover.

It may definitely be something that needs to be cleared up in the
documentation though.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2013-05-10 17:20:53 Re: Deploying PostgreSQL on CentOS with SSD and Hardware RAID
Previous Message David Boreham 2013-05-10 17:03:14 Re: Deploying PostgreSQL on CentOS with SSD and Hardware RAID