Adrian Klaver wrote:
"If you set up a WAL archive that's accessible from the standby, these
solutions are not required, since the standby can always use the archive
to catch up provided it retains enough segments. *This is dependent on
verification that the archiving is working properly. A belt
Greetings,
* Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@aklaver.com) wrote:
> On 08/13/2018 05:08 AM, Phil Endecott wrote:
> >Adrian Klaver wrote:
> >Really? I thought the intention was that the system should be
> >able to recover reliably when the slave reconnects after a
> >period of downtime, subject only t
On 08/13/2018 05:08 AM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 08/12/2018 02:56 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Anyway. Do others agree that my issue was the result of
wal_keep_segments=0 ?
Only as a sub-issue of the slave losing contact with the master. The
basic problem is maintaining two
Greetings,
* Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@aklaver.com) wrote:
> On 08/13/2018 05:39 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
> >>Adrian Klaver wrote:
> >>>On 08/12/2018 02:56 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
> Anyway. Do others agree that my issue was th
On 08/13/2018 05:39 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 08/12/2018 02:56 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Anyway. Do others agree that my issue was the result of
wal_keep_segments=0 ?
Only as a sub-issue of the sla
Greetings,
* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
> Adrian Klaver wrote:
> >On 08/12/2018 02:56 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
> >>Anyway. Do others agree that my issue was the result of
> >>wal_keep_segments=0 ?
> >
> >Only as a sub-issue of the slave losing contact with the maste
Greetings,
* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
> Adrian Klaver wrote:
> >On 08/12/2018 03:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>Greetings,
> >>
> >>* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
> >>>OK. I think this is perhaps a documentation bug, maybe a missing
>
Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 08/12/2018 03:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
OK. I think this is perhaps a documentation bug, maybe a missing
warning when the master reads its configuration, and maybe (as you say)
a bad default value
Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 08/12/2018 02:56 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Anyway. Do others agree that my issue was the result of
wal_keep_segments=0 ?
Only as a sub-issue of the slave losing contact with the master. The
basic problem is maintaining two separate operations, archiving and
streaming,
Greetings,
* Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@aklaver.com) wrote:
> On 08/12/2018 03:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
> >>OK. I think this is perhaps a documentation bug, maybe a missing
> >>warning when the master reads its configuration, and
On 08/12/2018 03:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
OK. I think this is perhaps a documentation bug, maybe a missing
warning when the master reads its configuration, and maybe (as you say)
a bad default value.
If we consider it
On 08/12/2018 02:56 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
Specifically, section 26.2.5 of the docs says:
"If you use streaming replication without file-based continuous archiving,
the server might recycle old WAL segments before the standby has received
them. If this occurs, the stan
Greetings,
* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
> OK. I think this is perhaps a documentation bug, maybe a missing
> warning when the master reads its configuration, and maybe (as you say)
> a bad default value.
If we consider it to be an issue worthy of a change then we
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
>* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
>>2018-08-11 00:12:15.536 UTC [7954] LOG: restored log file
"0001000700D0" from archive
>>2018-08-11 00:12:15.797 UTC [
Greetings,
* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
> >>archive_command = 'ssh backup test ! -f backup/postgresql/archivedir/%f &&
> >> scp %p backup:backup/postgresql/archive
On 08/12/2018 12:53 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Phil Endecott wrote:
On the master, I have:
wal_level = replica
archive_mode = on
archive_command = 'ssh backup test ! -f backup/postgresql/archivedir/%f &&
scp %p backup:backup/postgresql/archivedir/%f'
On the slave I have:
sta
On 08/12/2018 12:25 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 08/11/2018 12:42 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Adrian Klaver wrote:
Looks like the master recycled the WAL's while the slave could not
connect.
Yes but... why is that a problem? The master is copying the
Phil Endecott wrote:
> On the master, I have:
>
> wal_level = replica
> archive_mode = on
> archive_command = 'ssh backup test ! -f backup/postgresql/archivedir/%f &&
>scp %p backup:backup/postgresql/archivedir/%f'
>
> On the slave I have:
>
> standby_mode = 'on'
> primary_conni
Hi Adrian,
Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 08/11/2018 12:42 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Adrian Klaver wrote:
Looks like the master recycled the WAL's while the slave could not
connect.
Yes but... why is that a problem? The master is copying the WALs to
the backup server using scp, where th
Hi Stephen,
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
archive_command = 'ssh backup test ! -f backup/postgresql/archivedir/%f &&
scp %p backup:backup/postgresql/archivedir/%f'
This is really not a sufficient or particularly intelligent
Greetings,
* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_li...@chezphil.org) wrote:
> Dear Experts,
Since you're asking ...
> I recently set up replication for the first time. It seemed to be
> working OK in my initial tests, but didn't cope when the slave was
> down for a longer period. This is all with
On 08/11/2018 12:42 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Adrian Klaver wrote:
Looks like the master recycled the WAL's while the slave could not
connect.
Yes but... why is that a problem? The master is copying the WALs to
the backup server using scp, where they remain forever. The slave gets
Hi Adrian,
Adrian Klaver wrote:
Looks like the master recycled the WAL's while the slave could not connect.
Yes but... why is that a problem? The master is copying the WALs to
the backup server using scp, where they remain forever. The slave gets
them from there before it starts streaming.
On 08/11/2018 08:18 AM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Dear Experts,
I recently set up replication for the first time. It seemed to be
working OK in my initial tests, but didn't cope when the slave was
down for a longer period. This is all with the Debian stable
packages of PostgreSQL 9.6. My replicati
24 matches
Mail list logo
