| From: | German Becker <german(dot)becker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence |
| Date: | 2013-05-24 15:28:19 |
| Message-ID: | CALyjCLugLBkgGm2D=cZJSs+wo4_cPOYjDcrRiChBSYmPv3+K0Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
> > Maybe I didn't explain correctly. I am using COPY/pg_dump/pg_restore for
> > migration (and it is working fine). The streaming replication is for
> > hot-standby replication *once migrated*. Thing is I disbable archving and
> > set wal_level to minimal, when migrating the large portion of data, to
> make
> > it faster. Then I switch to wal_level=hot_standby, i.e the "production"
> > configuration, and the WAL segment seuqence seems to overlap with the
> > segments generated with the other setting.
> >
>
> Though, now you understand it's not what it looks like, right? :-)
>
>
> --
> Amit Langote
>
I didn't quite understand what you mean by that... But anyways so do you
people think this sequence number overlap is "normal" ?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-05-24 15:29:10 | Re: getting rid of freezing |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-05-24 15:25:29 | Re: background processes vs. hot standby |