Re: Strange replication problem - segment restored from archive but still requested from master

From: Piotr Gasidło <quaker(at)barbara(dot)eu(dot)org>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Strange replication problem - segment restored from archive but still requested from master
Date: 2015-05-22 16:36:40
Message-ID: CAF8akQs8X5dW6fqPY6ZEzts1Ttu-5B1fPg6eKkDw--MOOphE7w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

2015-05-22 6:55 GMT+02:00 Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> This problem happens when WAL record is stored in separate two WAL files and
> there is no valid latter WAL file in the standby. In your case, the former file
> is 0000000400004C4D00000090 and the latter is 0000000400004C4D00000091.
>
> In this case, the first half of WAL record can be read from the former WAL file,
> but the remaining half not because no valid latter file exists in the standby.
> Then the standby tries to retrieve the latter WAL file via replication.
> The problem here is that the standby tries to start the replication from the
> starting point of WAL record, i.e., that's the location of the former WAL file.
> So the already-read WAL file is requested via replication.
> (..)

I currently have wal_keep_segments set to 0.
Setting this to higher value will help? As I understand: master won't
delete segment and could stream it to slave on request - so it will
help.
Does this setting delays WAL archiving?

--
Piotr Gasidło

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bill Moran 2015-05-22 16:36:59 Re: Allowing postgresql to accept 0xff syntax for data types that it makes sense for?
Previous Message Bill Moran 2015-05-22 16:34:04 Re: Allowing postgresql to accept 0xff syntax for data types that it makes sense for?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2015-05-22 16:40:35 Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?
Previous Message Shulgin, Oleksandr 2015-05-22 16:35:36 Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?