On 04/30/2015 01:49 PM, Charlton Galvarino wrote:
archiving run. Postgres will recycle WALs on its own when they are no
longer needed. Or is there is some compelling reason you want to get rid
of WALs?
Ah. I didn't know that. I thought the cleanup was on me. Bonus!
For more info take a look here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/wal-configuration.html
Things are running smoothly so far. The proof will be in the pudding after 48h or so. But I have changed my rsync from its original pull approach to push. I do need to clean up the WAL's on master once they've made it to the warm_standby,
Why?
so in this new push approach, I only round up WAL's that are, say 10m
old, and then rsync those to warm_standby,
To the standby server pg_xlog or to the archive directory?
If it to the archive directory I am not following. The archive_command
is pushing the WALs to the archive directory and restore_command is
pulling it from that directory and then cleaning up. What is rsync doing
that is not already being done?
If directly, to the standby pg_xlog I do not see it ending well when two
independent processes are writing to the same directory.
deleting them on master when they've been xferred. warm_standby
continues to do a good job of cleaning up the archive dir w/o any fuss
from me.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
