On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Chris Hundt <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(One of Patrick's coworkers here; thanks a lot for your assistance)Just in case you wanted this as well, I ranpsql 'replication=1 dbname=XXX host=127.0.0.1 port=5432 user=XXX password=XXX' -c 'IDENTIFY_SYSTEM;'
(5432 is the stuck replica and 5445 is the pipe to the working replica)systemid | timeline | xlogpos---------------------+----------+--------------5964163898407843711 | 1 | 174/B76D16A8On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Patrick Krecker <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Andres Freund <andres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[FWIW: proper quoting makes answering easier and thus more likely]
Uh. this indicates that the machine you're talking to is *not* one of
On 2014-08-29 15:37:51 -0700, Patrick Krecker wrote:
> I ran the following on the local endpoint of spiped:
>
> while [ true ]; do psql -h localhost -p 5445 judicata -U marbury -c "select
> modtime, pg_last_xlog_receive_location(), pg_last_xlog_replay_location()
> from replication_time"; done;
>
> And the same command on production and I was able to verify that the xlogs
> for a given point in time were the same (modtime is updated every second by
> an upstart job):
>
> spiped from office -> production:
> modtime | pg_last_xlog_receive_location |
> pg_last_xlog_replay_location
> ----------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------
> 2014-08-29 15:23:25.563766 | 177/2E80C9F8 | 177/2E80C9F8
>
> Ran directly on production replica:
> modtime | pg_last_xlog_receive_location |
> pg_last_xlog_replay_location
> ----------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------
> 2014-08-29 15:23:25.563766 | 177/2E80C9F8 | 177/2E80C9F8
>
> To me, this is sufficient proof that spiped is indeed talking to the
> machine I think it's talking to (also lsof reports the correct hostname).
>
> I created another basebackup from the currently stuck postgres intance on
> another machine and I also get this error:
>
> 2014-08-29 15:27:30 PDT FATAL: could not receive data from WAL stream:
> ERROR: requested starting point 177/2D000000 is ahead of the WAL flush
> position of this server 174/B76D16A8
the above as it has a flush position of '174/B76D16A8' - not something
that's really possible when the node actually is at '177/2E80C9F8'.
Could you run, on the standby that's having problems, the following
command:
psql 'host=127.0.0.1 port=5445 user=XXX password=XXX' -c 'IDENTIFY_SYSTEM;'
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
RE: quoting, I wonder if Gmail is messing it up somehow? Or am I doing something else wrong? Sorry :(First, I apologize for the misleading information, but when I made another basebackup and tried to use it, I configured the machine to cascade from the stuck replica, *not* from the spiped endpoint. When I properly connected it to the spiped endpoint it synced up fine, giving this log line:2014-08-29 16:16:21 PDT LOG: started streaming WAL from primary at 177/4F000000 on timeline 1The command as you gave reported a syntax error as is, but I googled a little bit and run this one:psql 'replication=1 dbname=XXX host=127.0.0.1 port=5445 user=XXX password=XXX' -c 'IDENTIFY_SYSTEM;'
And it gave me this output:systemid | timeline | xlogpos---------------------+----------+--------------5964163898407843711 | 1 | 177/53091990
I I restarted the server and it promptly started fetching WAL archives from our backups [1]. I am still at a loss as to why the binary replication couldn't reconnect and why Postgres didn't fall back to fetching WAL archives with its restore_command.
