Re: Wal files - Question | Postgres 9.2

2016-11-29 23:59 GMT+13:00 Patrick B <patrickbakerbr(at)gmail(dot)com>:

>
>
> 2016-11-29 16:36 GMT+13:00 David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Patrick B <patrickbakerbr(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ho
>>> ​[w]
>>> is that even possible?? I don't understand!
>>>
>>>
>> ​https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/warm-standby.html
>> """​
>>
>> If you use streaming replication without file-based continuous archiving,
>> you have to set wal_keep_segments in the master to a value high enough to
>> ensure that old WAL segments are not recycled too early, while the standby
>> might still need them to catch up. If the standby falls behind too much, it
>> needs to be reinitialized from a new base backup. If you set up a WAL
>> archive that's accessible from the standby, wal_keep_segments is not
>> required as the standby can always use the archive to catch up.
>> ​"""
>>
>> Basically you did just that when you destroyed the archive. Apparently
>> the master doesn't churn through WAL quickly enough to have had to discard
>> the segments from the prior two hours.
>>
>> David J.
>> ​
>>
>>
>
> That was really helpful! Thanks David!
>
> Patrick
>
>

Hey guys,

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/runtime-config-replication.html

wal_keep_segments is the parameter responsible for streaming replication be
able to recover itself without using wal_files, is that right?