Re: pg_basebackup -x/X doesn't play well with archive_mode & wal_keep_segments

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup -x/X doesn't play well with archive_mode & wal_keep_segments
Date: 2015-02-17 03:18:41
Message-ID: CAHGQGwEmwRbAp24qV07ChtfeQS-6MfqVUWYkx5zj8TJZOe2RmA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2015-02-12 11:44:05 -0800, Sergey Konoplev wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > This obviously should not be the case. I'll have a look in a couple of hours. Until then you can likely just work around the problem by creating the archive_status directory.
>>
>> Thank you. Just let me know if you need some extra info or debugging.
>
> No need for debugging. It's plain and simply a (cherry-pick) conflict I
> resolved wrongly during backpatching. 9.3, 9.4 and master do not have
> that problem. That whole fix was quite painful because every single
> release had significantly different code :(. pg_basebackup/ is pretty
> messy.
> I'm not sure why my testsuite didn't trigger that problem. Possibly
> because a retry makes things work :(
>
> Somewhat uckily it's 9.2 only (9.3, 9.4 and master look correct, earlier
> releases don't have pg_receivexlog)

Are you planning to back-patch the fix to 9.2?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2015-02-17 03:43:55 Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-02-17 02:46:46 Re: We do not need pg_promote_v4_to_v6_addr/mask