Search Postgresql Archives

Re: Replication failure, slave requesting old segments

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Greetings,

* Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On 08/12/2018 03:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> >>OK.  I think this is perhaps a documentation bug, maybe a missing
> >>warning when the master reads its configuration, and maybe (as you say)
> >>a bad default value.
> >
> >If we consider it to be an issue worthy of a change then we should
> >probably just change the default value, and maybe not even allow it to
> >be set lower than '1'.
> 
> I would say leave the default at 0 as it leaves no doubt that you are
> performing without a net. A setting of '1' implies you are covered and for a
> fast moving cluster or slow moving one with sufficient downtime that would
> not be the case. Better to let the end user know this is not a simple
> problem and some thought needs to go into configuration.

Uh, this specific case is where there *is* a 'safety net' though-
archive command and restore command were configured and being used, so I
don't buy off on this argument at all.

Maybe we just internally bump wal_keep_segments to '1' to avoid this
specific risk without actually changing the default or making people
change their existing configurations, but if this is really what's
happening then I don't think the answer is "don't do anything."

Thanks!

Stephen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux