On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Joseph Kregloh <jkregloh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joseph Kregloh <jkregloh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Currently I am doing asynchronous replication from master to
> slave. Now if I restart the slave it will fall out of sync with the
> master. Is there a correct procedure or set of steps to avoid this? I
> am looking for best practices or suggestions. Whenever my slave fell
> out of sync I would either issue a new pg_base_backup() or set the
> master to pg_start_backup() do an rsync and stop using
> pg_stop_backup(). If there is a way to avoid any of that, for example
> pause replication to hold all the wal files until the replicated slave
> comes back and then release them once the replicated slave is up.
>
> I apologize if this question has already been asked. I did some searching beforehand.
See the manual and read up on the 2 GUCs; archive_command and wal_keep_segments.
Thanks, i'll read into this some more.wal_keep_segments lets you hold a configurable number of WAL segments
back and buy some more time till you have to resync the stand bys.
Setting archive_command to '' or something like '/bin/false' lets you
delay archiving forever till you change them back again and/or fill
whatever file system pg_xlog writes to :-)
So disabling the archive_command by setting it to and empty string or /bin/false will effectively pause log shipping? When I re-enable the archive command will it continue where it left of when the archive_command was "disabled"?
AFAIK, disabling archive_command will result on accumulated wal files on xlog dir on master. And when You re-enable the archive_command, it will continue where it left of. It has the status of last archived wal files. Check on PGDATA/pg_xlog/archive_status/
>
> Thanks,
> -Joseph Kregloh
>
--
Jerry Sievers
Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
e: postgres.consulting@xxxxxxxxxxx
p: 312.241.7800
Regards,
