| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 乔志强 <qiaozhiqiang(at)leadcoretech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [streaming replication] 9.1.3 streaming replication bug ? |
| Date: | 2012-04-10 15:07:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwH278NtJaN2w5bvahFZSA6obRsnRMk9K7Jb1wj=hyvL-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, 乔志强 <qiaozhiqiang(at)leadcoretech(dot)com> wrote:
> Question:
> Why the master deletes the WAL segment before send to standby in synchronous mode?
Otherwise the master might be filled up with lots of unsent WAL files and
which might cause PANIC error in the master, when there is no standby.
IOW, the master tries to avoid a PANIC error rather than termination of
replication.
> It is a streaming replication bug ?
No. It's intentional.
> If use synchronous_standby_names for sync standby, if no online standby, all commit will delay to standby connect to master,
> So wal_keep_segments is only for offline async standby actually.
What if synchronous_commit is set to local or async?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hamann.w | 2012-04-10 16:50:54 | Re: question about alternate ordering of results |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2012-04-10 15:01:13 | Re: Is this doable using Postgresql crosstab or some other function? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-04-10 15:10:58 | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-04-10 14:59:16 | Re: disposition of remaining patches |