On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Lonni J Friedman <netllama@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> First the problem. On *only* one of the two standby servers, I'm >> seeing errors like the following whenever I issue any SQL commands on >> the master which write (insert, update, etc) to the database: >> LOG: invalid record length at 8/7A000020 >> FATAL: terminating walreceiver process due to administrator command >> LOG: invalid record length at 8/7A0000B0 >> LOG: streaming replication successfully connected to primary >> LOG: invalid record length at 8/7B000020 >> FATAL: terminating walreceiver process due to administrator command >> LOG: record with zero length at 8/7B0000B0 >> LOG: streaming replication successfully connected to primary >> LOG: record with incorrect prev-link 8/79000058 at 8/7D0000B0 >> LOG: streaming replication successfully connected to primary > > Did you use gcc4.6 or later to build PostgreSQL9.0? If yes, you would > face the same problem reported before; > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-06/msg00661.php > > This problem was fixed, and the fix will be included in next minor update > (i.e., 9.0.5). > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2011-06/msg00101.php Yes, that was the issue. I thought that I had replied earlier to someone else speculating that this was the issue, but perhaps I had not. >> 1) Both of the wiki links above comment that the restore_command may >> not be necessary if wal_keep_segments is large enough (mine is set to >> 128). I was going to setup the restore_command anyway, as I'm not yet >> confident enough about streaming replication and failover with >> postgresql to take chances, although the fact that i have two standby >> servers makes this setup a bit more complex. However, can anyone >> comment about whether its ever truly safe 100% of the time to run >> without a restore_command ? > > Specifically, what problem are you concerned about? I wish I knew. All the documentation out there always focuses on setting up a restore command, as if there would be a huge disaster if it wasn't done. Is it safe to simply make wal_keep_segments really large, and skip the restore_command altogether? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
