2015-05-22 18:36 GMT+02:00 Piotr Gasidło <quaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
--
2015-05-22 6:55 GMT+02:00 Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> This problem happens when WAL record is stored in separate two WAL files and
> there is no valid latter WAL file in the standby. In your case, the former file
> is 0000000400004C4D00000090 and the latter is 0000000400004C4D00000091.
>
> In this case, the first half of WAL record can be read from the former WAL file,
> but the remaining half not because no valid latter file exists in the standby.
> Then the standby tries to retrieve the latter WAL file via replication.
> The problem here is that the standby tries to start the replication from the
> starting point of WAL record, i.e., that's the location of the former WAL file.
> So the already-read WAL file is requested via replication.
> (..)
I currently have wal_keep_segments set to 0.
Setting this to higher value will help? As I understand: master won't
delete segment and could stream it to slave on request - so it will
help.
It definitely helps, but the issue could still happen.
Does this setting delays WAL archiving?
Nope. It delays recycling.
--
