Re: Postgresql Bug Report

Great, thanks for the update.

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, 22 Eyl 2020 Sal, 16:04 tarihinde şunu
yazdı:

> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:52 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:36 PM İsmet BALAT <bcalbatros(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Julien,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply. My log in addition. I did;
> > > 1- rm -fr /var/lib/pgsql/12/data/*
> > > 2- /usr/pgsql-12/bin/pg_basebackup --host=master_ip
> --pgdata=/var/lib/pgsql/12/data/ --username=replica_user --verbose
> --progress --wal-method=stream --write-recovery-conf --checkpoint=fast
> --create-slot --slot=ha_slot
> > > 3- systemctl restart postgresql-12
> > > 4- Crush :/
> > >
> > > But I tried same steps and all of this and avarage 8-success, 2-this
> fail. I don't understand because I did same everthing of steps.
> > >
> > > Thank you for now.
> >
> > It seems that you have an issue with your procedure, as the logs show:
> >
> > 2020-09-22 14:23:59.041 +03 [5045] FATAL: database system identifier
> > differs between the primary and standby
> > 2020-09-22 14:23:59.041 +03 [5045] DETAIL: The primary's identifier
> > is 6875268062102845505, the standby's identifier is
> > 6875268050644555587.
> > [...]
> > 2020-09-22 14:30:27.418 +03 [9247] LOG: database system was shut down
> > in recovery at 2020-09-22 14:30:27 +03
> > 2020-09-22 14:30:27.419 +03 [9247] LOG: entering standby mode
> > 2020-09-22 14:30:27.419 +03 [9247] LOG: invalid primary checkpoint
> record
> > 2020-09-22 14:30:27.419 +03 [9247] PANIC: could not locate a valid
> > checkpoint record
> > 2020-09-22 14:30:28.913 +03 [9244] LOG: startup process (PID 9247)
> > was terminated by signal 6: Aborted
> > 2020-09-22 14:30:28.913 +03 [9244] LOG: aborting startup due to
> > startup process failure
> > 2020-09-22 14:30:29.008 +03 [9244] LOG: database system is shut down
> >
> > I see that your step 3 is to *restart* the postgres service. Are you
> > executing the pg_basebackup command (and removing the data) while the
> > server is running? If yes don't search any further, that can't work.
>
> For the archive's sake, OP did confirm that stopping postgres before
> step 1 fixed the issue.
>