On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM, <petteri.r...@aalto.fi> wrote: > LOG: entering standby mode > WARNING: WAL was generated with wal_level=minimal, data may be missing > HINT: This happens if you temporarily set wal_level=minimal without taking > a new base backup. > FATAL: hot standby is not possible because wal_level was not set to > "hot_standby" on the master server > HINT: Either set wal_level to "hot_standby" on the master, or turn off > hot_standby here. > LOG: startup process (PID 28761) exited with exit code 1 > LOG: aborting startup due to startup process failure > > The error message above on the FATAL line is wrong (or at least misleading). > The real problem should be that it can't connect to the master. The > wal_level on the master is hot_standby (captured after I started it):
The HINT that we should simply set something on the master is a little misleading with respect to timing. However, if the master and the standby aren't even connected and you know that, how did you expect there to be a causal link between the setting on the master and the state of the standby? What do you suggest the messages say? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
