Hi,
Thank you very much for the response.
I reckon we can return to more conventional approach of postgres db synchronization:
1) SELECT pg_start_backup('label',
true);
2) rsync/cp $PGDATA directory;
3) SELECT pg_stop_backup();
In my opinion this approach looks better
because it does not depend on wal_sender_timeout value.
I have a question. What is your opinion about pg_basebackup utility
and its behaviour for this condition? Is it a bug? Should it be fixed?
Best regards,
Andrei
From:
Shreeyansh Dba <shreeyansh2014@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
AYahorau@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Cc:
pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
MikalaiKeida@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
03/12/2018 15:15
Subject:
Re: pg_basebackup
fails: could not receive data from WAL stream: server closed the connection
unexpectedly
Hi Andrei Yahorau,
As it is difficult to give an exact recommendation, however, We have enabled
and tested your exact error with the same parameters in our testing environment,
we received the same error and able to resolve this problem by increasing
'wal_sender_timeout' parameter value.
I think you need to test and verify before implementing it on your server
according to your business, configuration requirements.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:17 PM <AYahorau@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello PostgreSQL Community!
Not so long ago I faced the problem of database synchronization using pg_basebackup
utility on linux SLES 12 machine using PostgreSQL 10.4:
pg_basebackup -h host01 -U dbuser -D /var/PostgresDb -w
LOG: standby "pg_basebackup"
is now a synchronous standby with priority 1
pg_basebackup: could not receive data from WAL stream: server closed the
connection unexpectedly
This probably means
the server terminated abnormally
before or while
processing the request.
pg_basebackup: child process exited with error 1
pg_basebackup: removing contents of data directory "/var/RtpPostgresDb"
PostgreSQL log of master server contain the following error entry:
terminating walsender process due to replication timeout
Currently my configuration is the following:
wal_sender_timeout = 1s
wal_receiver_timeout = 1s
wal_receiver_status_interval = 10s
I see that some people faced this situation:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/109968546.289.1460409481048.JavaMail.pbrunnen%40Station8.local
The suggestion was increasing wal_sender_timeout parameter.
On the one hand I understand that if my database gets bigger it will
require bigger value of wal_sender_timeout. On the other hand I
use wal_sender_timeout = 1s on purpose in order to detect
if network bad.
Could you please suggest an appropriate configuration, sensible relations
between configuration parameters or any other approach of database synchronization
which overcomes this issue?
Thank you in advance,
Andrei Yahorau
