Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: postgres 9 bind address for replication

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Adam Crews <adam(dot)crews(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-cluster-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: postgres 9 bind address for replication
Date: 2012-07-23 15:34:26
Message-ID: CA+Tgmobb45_TX+GrF5ZsvQNqAoiBmps6vOPMifPX7PRdt+30Aw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-cluster-hackerspgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Adam Crews <adam(dot)crews(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm sorry for cross-posting, however I originally posted this to
> pgsql-general list, but didnt get any replies.
>
>
> I’m using pg 9.1.3 on CentOS 5 and have a few slave databases setup
> using the built in streaming replication.
>
> On the slaves I set the “listen_addresses” config option to an ip
> address for a virtual alias on my network interfaces.  The host has an
> address of 10.1.1.10, and there is a virtual alias of 10.1.1.40 that
> the slave postmaster binds to.
>
> When the slave makes it connection to the master to start replication
> the source address for the connection is the host address, not the
> virtual alias address.  Connections appear to come from 10.1.1.10,
> instead of the slave postmaster address of 10.1.1.40.
>
> This seems like a bug to me.  I could understand that if the
> postmaster is listening on all interfaces, then it should use whatever
> the IP is for the for the host, but in an instance where the
> postmaster has been configured to listen to a specific address it
> seems like the call to start the replication should be passed that
> address so connections come from the slave postmaster’s IP, instead of
> the host.
>
> Is there a config option that can be used to adjust this?  I've looked
> in the docs, but haven't found one yet.
>
> Is this perhaps a bug, or lack of feature?

I don't think it's a bug, because the behavior you're hoping for might
not be what everyone would want in a similar situation.  It might
qualify as an unimplemented feature.

This mailing list isn't heavily used and this seems a bit off-topic
for it anyway; you might want to try a different one for further
discussion of this issue.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-07-23 15:34:29
Subject: Re: sortsupport for text
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-07-23 15:11:20
Subject: Re: [PATCH] XLogReader v2

pgsql-cluster-hackers by date

Next:From: Adam CrewsDate: 2012-07-23 18:23:32
Subject: postgres 9 bind address for replication
Previous:From: Adam CrewsDate: 2012-07-21 05:24:11
Subject: postgres 9 bind address for replication

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Rachel OwsleyDate: 2012-07-23 16:55:56
Subject: General guidance: Levenshtein distance versus other similarity algorithms
Previous:From: Georges RacinetDate: 2012-07-23 12:09:32
Subject: Problem with 9.1 streaming replication

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group