On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So, obviously at this point my slave database is corrupted beyond >> repair due to nothing more than an unexpected crash on the master. > > Certainly that's true for resuming replication. From your > description it sounds as though the slave would be usable for > purposes of taking over for an unrecoverable master. Or am I > misunderstanding?
It depends on what you mean. If you can prevent the slave from ever reconnecting to the master, then it's still safe to promote it. But if the master comes up and starts generating WAL again, and the slave ever sees any of that WAL (either via SR or via the archive) then you're toast. In my case, the slave was irrecoverably out of sync with the master as soon as the crash happened, but it still could have been promoted at that point if you killed the old master. It became corrupted as soon as it replayed the first WAL record starting beyond 1/87000000. At that point it's potentially got arbitrary corruption; you need a new base backup (but this may not be immediately obvious; it may look OK even if it isn't). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
