From: | Joe Van Dyk <joe(at)tanga(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Emanuel Calvo <emanuel(dot)calvo(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: some queries on standby preventing replication updates |
Date: | 2014-10-28 18:37:02 |
Message-ID: | CACfv+pJ9G4cUvwre5MRqGj+romQZmQ29GK6Xf-AenOgaXcH=kQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Emanuel Calvo <
emanuel(dot)calvo(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> El 23/10/14 a las 17:40, Joe Van Dyk escibió:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a master and a slave database.
> >
> > I've got hot_standby_feedback turned on,
> > max_standby_streaming_delay=-1. I've configured the master and slave
> > to keep a few days of WALs around.
> >
> > I've noticed that when some large queries are run on the standby
> > machine (ones that take more than a minute or so), replication updates
> > are paused. Is there a way to fix this?
> >
> You may need to set a value on max_standby_streaming_delay, which
> controls the time
> before cancelling the standby queries when a conflict occurs on a
> wal-records-about-to-be-applied.
>
> Source:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/runtime-config-replication.html
I'm using -1 for that option, would using something different be better?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Emanuel Calvo | 2014-10-28 18:54:52 | Re: some queries on standby preventing replication updates |
Previous Message | Joe Van Dyk | 2014-10-28 18:35:53 | Re: pg killed by oom-killer, "invalid contrecord length 2190 at A6C/331AAA90" on slaves |