From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Spontaneous PITR standby activiation |
Date: | 2011-02-16 19:35:57 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikrc-36OnhsGwfC7oJXGFD8EKK8idCRHnjgS3g4@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 November 2009 07:26, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> David Christensen wrote:
>> 1) is there a hard limit of the number of times the archive_command will
>> attempt? I didn't see anything documented about this in the PITR or
>> config docs, so I'm guessing the 10 failures I saw in the log were just
>> coincidental.
>
> There's no limit. It will try forever.
>
>> 2) are the archive_command failures in the master's log responsible for
>> the redo records?
>
> No, archive_command failures shouldn't affect the standby.
>
>> 3) would a Pg forced shutdown cause issues with the generated WAL when
>> replaying?
>
> No.
>
>> 4) at first I thought it had to do with a bug/failure in pg_standby, but
>> I'm wondering if it has to do with the "record with zero length"
>> referenced in the standby's logs. Thoughts?
>
> That basically means that WAL replay reached end of WAL. The rest of the
> WAL file is probably full of zeros. It's quite normal in crash recovery,
> for example. But I have no explanation for why such a WAL file was archived.
Were any conclusions made out of this during any discussion, or bug
fixes made as a result?
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-02-16 20:09:17 | Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-02-16 19:30:45 | pgsql: Hot Standby feedback for avoidance of cleanup conflicts on stand |