From: | Piotr Gasidło <quaker(at)barbara(dot)eu(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Strange replication problem - segment restored from archive but still requested from master |
Date: | 2015-05-25 13:15:03 |
Message-ID: | CAF8akQtqHTW5+LBRVKCXhTGX+UFgT0AFgc1NjzH5ugG54EpA5A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
2015-05-25 11:30 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>:
>> I currently have wal_keep_segments set to 0.
>> Setting this to higher value will help? As I understand: master won't
>> delete segment and could stream it to slave on request - so it will
>> help.
>
>
> It definitely helps, but the issue could still happen.
>
What conditions must be met for issue to happen?
Both archive_command on master and restore_commands are set and working.
Also wal_keep_segments is set.
I see no point of failure - only delay in the case of high WAL traffic
on master:
- slave starts with restoring WALs from archive,
- now, it connects to master and notices, that for last master's WAL
it needs previous one ("the issue"),
- slave asks master for previous WAL and gets it - job done, streaming
replication set, exit
- if unable to get it (WAL traffic is high, and after restoring last
WAL from archive and asking master for next one more than
wal_keep_segments were recycled) it returns to looking WALs in
archive.
Do I get it right?
--
Piotr Gasidło
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Allan Kamau | 2015-05-25 13:23:56 | Re: Reg: BULK COLLECT |
Previous Message | Andy Colson | 2015-05-25 12:44:46 | Re: Reg: BULK COLLECT |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | andrew | 2015-05-25 14:26:57 | BUG #13350: blindly fsyncing data dir considered harmful |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2015-05-25 10:48:38 | Re: Order of columns in query is important?! |