Re: [HACKERS] The behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues()
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Sawada Masahiko
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> xlog.c:6177
>>> if (ControlFile->wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY)
>>> ereport(ERROR,
>>> (errmsg("hot standby is not possible because wal_level was not
>>>
>>> So we have to start and stop standby server with changed
>>> wal_level(i.g., hot_standby) if we want to enable hot standby.
>>> In this case, I think that the standby server didn't need to confirm
>>> wal_level value of ControlFile.
>>> I think that it should confirm value which is written in postgreql.conf.
>>>
>>
>> I think checking it from the control file on a standby in recovery
>> means that we should confirm if the *wal_level with which the WAL was
>> generated* is sufficient to now become a hot standby after recovery
>> finishes.
>>
>
> Sorry, should have said:
> *become a hot standby after recovery reaches a consistent state
>
Thank you for explain!
I understood it!
Regards,
---
Sawada Masahiko
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] The behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues()
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>
>>
>> xlog.c:6177
>> if (ControlFile->wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY)
>> ereport(ERROR,
>> (errmsg("hot standby is not possible because wal_level was not
>>
>> So we have to start and stop standby server with changed
>> wal_level(i.g., hot_standby) if we want to enable hot standby.
>> In this case, I think that the standby server didn't need to confirm
>> wal_level value of ControlFile.
>> I think that it should confirm value which is written in postgreql.conf.
>>
>
> I think checking it from the control file on a standby in recovery
> means that we should confirm if the *wal_level with which the WAL was
> generated* is sufficient to now become a hot standby after recovery
> finishes.
>
Sorry, should have said:
*become a hot standby after recovery reaches a consistent state
--
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] The behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues()
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>
> xlog.c:6177
> if (ControlFile->wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY)
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errmsg("hot standby is not possible because wal_level was not
>
> So we have to start and stop standby server with changed
> wal_level(i.g., hot_standby) if we want to enable hot standby.
> In this case, I think that the standby server didn't need to confirm
> wal_level value of ControlFile.
> I think that it should confirm value which is written in postgreql.conf.
>
I think checking it from the control file on a standby in recovery
means that we should confirm if the *wal_level with which the WAL was
generated* is sufficient to now become a hot standby after recovery
finishes.
--
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] The behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues()
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I had doubts regarding behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues() function.
>
> I could not start standby server which is created by pg_basebackup
> with following scenario.
> 1. Start the master server with 'wal_level = archve' , 'hot_standby =
> on' and other settings of replication.
> 2. Create the standby server from the master server by using pg_basebackup.
> 3. Change the wal_level value of both master and standby server to
> 'hot_standby'.
> 4. Restarting the master server.
> 5. Starting the standby server.
>
> In #5, I got following error even if I set wal_level to 'hot_standby'.
>
> FATAL: hot standby is not possible because wal_level was not set to
> "hot_standby" or higher on the master server
>
> I tried to investigate this behaviour.
> Currently CheckRequiredParameterValues() function uses wal_level value
> which is got from ControlFile when comparing between wal_level and
> WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY as following code.
>
> xlog.c:6177
> if (ControlFile->wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY)
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errmsg("hot standby is not possible because wal_level was not
>
> So we have to start and stop standby server with changed
> wal_level(i.g., hot_standby) if we want to enable hot standby.
> In this case, I think that the standby server didn't need to confirm
> wal_level value of ControlFile.
> I think that it should confirm value which is written in postgreql.conf.
>
The snapshot of running transaction information is written to WAL only when
the wal_level is set to 'hot_standby'.
This information is required on the standby side to recreate the running
transactions.
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
