| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Phil Endecott <spam_from_pgsql_lists(at)chezphil(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15323: wal_keep_segments must be >= 1 for WAL archiving + streaming to work |
| Date: | 2018-08-13 15:55:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20180813155545.t3xafhk52wbambmv@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On 2018-08-13 11:42:47 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > This should really work even without replication slots though.
> >
> > Why? I fail to see what'd be gained by adding "always retain one
> > segment" rule. It'd not make the setup any more reliable. If anything
> > it'd make it harder to spot issues in test setups.
>
> What exactly is wrong with the setup where this should be failing?
If you want to rely on archiving, you either need to be ok with
arbitrary delays in low activity periods, or use archive timeout.
If you want to rely on streaming, you need an appropriate WAL retention
policy, i.e. wal_keep_segments or replication slots.
The setup at hand does doesn't want arbitrary delay in archiving
situations but doesn't use archive_timeout and it retain the necessary
WAL for streaming.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-13 16:01:36 | Re: BUG #15323: wal_keep_segments must be >= 1 for WAL archiving + streaming to work |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-08-13 15:42:47 | Re: BUG #15323: wal_keep_segments must be >= 1 for WAL archiving + streaming to work |