Re: pg_basebackup fails: could not receive data from WAL stream: server closed the connection unexpectedly

Hi Andrei Yahorau,

As it is difficult to give an exact recommendation, however, We have
enabled and tested your exact error with the same parameters in our testing
environment, we received the same error and able to resolve this problem by
increasing 'wal_sender_timeout' parameter value.

I think you need to test and verify before implementing it on your server
according to your business, configuration requirements.

<http://www.shreeyansh.com>

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:17 PM <AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu> wrote:

> Hello PostgreSQL Community!
>
>
> Not so long ago I faced the problem of database synchronization using
> pg_basebackup utility on linux SLES 12 machine using PostgreSQL 10.4:
>
> pg_basebackup -h host01 -U dbuser -D /var/PostgresDb -w
> *LOG: standby **"pg_basebackup"*
>
>
> * is now a synchronous standby with priority 1 pg_basebackup: could not
> receive data from WAL stream: server closed the connection unexpectedly
> This probably means the server terminated abnormally
> before or **while*
>
> * processing the request. pg_basebackup: child process exited with error 1
> pg_basebackup: removing contents of data directory **"/var/RtpPostgresDb"*
>
>
> PostgreSQL log of master server contain the following error entry:
> *terminating walsender process due to replication timeout*
>
> Currently my configuration is the following:
> wal_sender_timeout = 1s
> wal_receiver_timeout = 1s
> wal_receiver_status_interval = 10s
>
> I see that some people faced this situation:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/109968546.289.1460409481048.JavaMail.pbrunnen%40Station8.local
> The suggestion was increasing *wal_sender_timeout *parameter.
>
> On the one hand I understand that if my database gets bigger it will
> require bigger value of *wal_sender_timeout*. On the other hand I use *wal_sender_timeout
> = 1s* on purpose in order to detect if network bad.
>
> Could you please suggest an appropriate configuration, sensible relations
> between configuration parameters or any other approach of database
> synchronization which overcomes this issue?
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Andrei Yahorau