On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Jerry Sievers <gsiever...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Joseph Kregloh <jkreg...@sproutloud.com> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > Currently I am doing asynchronous replication from master to > > slave. Now if I restart the slave it will fall out of sync with the > > master. Is there a correct procedure or set of steps to avoid this? I > > am looking for best practices or suggestions. Whenever my slave fell > > out of sync I would either issue a new pg_base_backup() or set the > > master to pg_start_backup() do an rsync and stop using > > pg_stop_backup(). If there is a way to avoid any of that, for example > > pause replication to hold all the wal files until the replicated slave > > comes back and then release them once the replicated slave is up. > > > > I apologize if this question has already been asked. I did some > searching beforehand. > > See the manual and read up on the 2 GUCs; archive_command and > wal_keep_segments. > > Thanks, i'll read into this some more. > wal_keep_segments lets you hold a configurable number of WAL segments > back and buy some more time till you have to resync the stand bys. > > Setting archive_command to '' or something like '/bin/false' lets you > delay archiving forever till you change them back again and/or fill > whatever file system pg_xlog writes to :-) > > So disabling the archive_command by setting it to and empty string or /bin/false will effectively pause log shipping? When I re-enable the archive command will it continue where it left of when the archive_command was "disabled"? > > > > Thanks, > > -Joseph Kregloh > > > > -- > Jerry Sievers > Postgres DBA/Development Consulting > e: postgres.consult...@comcast.net > p: 312.241.7800 >
