Hello,
At Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:16:22 -0800, Andres Freund wrote in
<20161118181622.hklschaizwaxo...@alap3.anarazel.de>
> Hi,
>
> On 2016-11-18 14:12:42 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync
> > replication set. This is not a bug and a b
Thanks for the comment.
At Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:06:55 +0800, Craig Ringer
wrote in
> > We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync
> > replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is
> > contrary to expectation on synchronous replication.
>
> Isn't this preven
Hi,
On 2016-11-18 14:12:42 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync
> replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is
> contrary to expectation on synchronous replication.
I don't think you can expect anything else.
> This
On 18 Nov. 2016 13:14, "Kyotaro HORIGUCHI"
wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync
> replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is
> contrary to expectation on synchronous replication.
Isn't this prevented by using a physical replicat
Hello.
We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync
replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is
contrary to expectation on synchronous replication.
> FATAL: could not receive data from WAL stream: ERROR: requested WAL segment
> 00010088 has