From: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Questions about the continuity of WAL archiving |
Date: | 2025-08-13 02:10:50 |
Message-ID: | CANzqJaD-pOt=0CBFXUPEXMtD8AMi_y76z4=Rak405+Rhui4hKQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
How often does your primary node crash, and then not recover due to WALs
corruption or WALs not existing?
If it's _ever_ happened, you should _fix that_ instead of rolling your own
WAL archival.process.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:05 PM px shi <spxlyy123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi, Adrian
>
> Given that you are using a less then capable storage solution(S3) why do
>> you think pushing the WAL from the standby to S3 would perform any
>> better then what is happening with the primary WAL?
>>
>
> I mean that archive_mode is set to on in primary and set to always in
> standby.
> This way, even if the primary crashes, the standby can still archive WAL
> files that the primary did not archive.
>
> The solution is to use a more capable storage platform.
>>
>
> However, I believe that even if we use a more capable storage platform,
> it is still impossible to archive WAL files in real time. As long as
> real-time archiving cannot be achieved, there will always be some WAL files
> that are not archived if the primary node crashes.
>
> Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> 于2025年8月13日周三 00:14写道:
>
>> On 8/12/25 01:24, px shi wrote:
>> >
>> > 1) What is the current archiving setup on the primary and why is
>> > lagging?
>> >
>> > The archive command uses pgBackRest to archive to S3. Because it is
>> > uploaded to S3, the archiving speed is slow, which has caused lagging.
>> >
>> > 2) Have you looked at archiving off the standby node while it is in
>> > standby per:
>> >
>> > Yes, archiving on the standby node is disabled. Is it recommended to
>> > share the WAL archive between the primary and standby nodes to avoid
>> > interruptions in archiving?
>>
>> Given that you are using a less then capable storage solution(S3) why do
>> you think pushing the WAL from the standby to S3 would perform any
>> better then what is happening with the primary WAL?
>>
>> The solution is to use a more capable storage platform.
>>
>> >
>> > Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
>> > <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>> 于2025年8月8日周五 23:23写道:
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Adrian Klaver
>> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
>>
>
--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | px shi | 2025-08-13 02:24:08 | Re: Questions about the continuity of WAL archiving |
Previous Message | px shi | 2025-08-13 02:05:01 | Re: Questions about the continuity of WAL archiving |