From: | Andreas Kretschmer <andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Atul Kumar <akumar14871(at)gmail(dot)com>,pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: question on streaming replication |
Date: | 2018-06-15 16:43:56 |
Message-ID: | 5F7FE103-343A-47E3-AC9A-5C23BEE139C8@a-kretschmer.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 14 June 2018 07:28:53 CEST, Atul Kumar <akumar14871(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have postgres edb 9.6 version, i have below query to solve it out.
>
>i have configured streaming replication having master and slave node
>on same server just to test it.
>
>All worked fine but when i made slave service stop, and create some
>test databases in master, after then i made slave service start, slave
>didn't pick the changes.
>
>The replication was on async state.
>
>Then after doing some search on google i tried to make it sync state
>but even making changes in postgresql.conf file I am neither getting
>sync state nor getting any changes on slave server.
>
>Please suggest the needful.
>
>
>Regards,
>Atul
Sync replication isn't usefull with only one standby.
I think, during the stop of the standby the master has overwitten needed wal's. You can prevent that by increasing wal_keep_segments or by using replication slots. Please use google, there are tons of docs about that all.
Regards, Andreas
--
2ndQuadrant - The PostgreSQL Support Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeremy Finzel | 2018-06-15 16:59:10 | Re: Partitioning with range types |
Previous Message | Melvin Davidson | 2018-06-15 16:43:02 | Re: PostgreSQL Volume Question |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-15 17:21:07 | Re: BUG #15237: I got "ERROR: source for a multiple-column UPDATE item must be a sub-SELECT or ROW() expression" |
Previous Message | Arseny Sher | 2018-06-15 15:27:56 | Re: Possible bug in logical replication. |