2016-11-01 10:33 GMT+13:00 David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Patrick B <patrickbake...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I got a test server, let's call it test01. >> >> The test01 has a basebackup from the master. >> I want to turn test01 into a master. It doesn't need to catch up with the >> wal_files, because I don't need it to be up-to-date. >> >> So what I did is: >> >> - Replaced /var/lib/pgsql/9.2/data/ with the basebackup >> - Created recovery.conf: >> >> restore_command = 'cp /var/lib/pgsql/wal_archive/%f %p' >> >> recovery_target_timeline = 'latest' >> >> standby_mode = off >> >> trigger_file = '/tmp/pg_failover_trigger' >> >> - touch /tmp/pg_failover_trigger >> - service postgresql start >> >> And then postgres starts recovering the wal_files. But I don't want >> that.. as I don't need a up-to-date >> >> Is the wal_files required anyway? >> >> > "...has a basebackup from the master" - the answer to your question > depends greatly on the detail behind that sentence. > > IIRC, unless you know that the data directory is consistent - because the > database was offline at the time of the backup - at least some WAL will > probably be required to bring the inconsistent backup data directory to a > known good state (i.e., post-checkpoint). > > David J. > > > > I see... as I'm recovering a slave and then turning it into a master, that's why the wal_files are required. Thanks! Patrick