Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 08/12/2018 02:56 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
Anyway. Do others agree that my issue was the result of
wal_keep_segments=0 ?
Only as a sub-issue of the slave losing contact with the master. The
basic problem is maintaining two separate operations, archiving and
streaming, in sync. If either or some combination of both lose
synchronization then it is anyone's guess on what is appropriate for
wal_keep_segments.
Really? I thought the intention was that the system should be
able to recover reliably when the slave reconnects after a
period of downtime, subject only to there being sufficient
network/CPU/disk bandwidth etc. for it to eventually catch up.
If that's not true, I think the docs need an even more extensive
overhaul! Suggestion for the paragraph that I quoted before from
26.2.5:
"If you set up a WAL archive that's accessible from the standby,
it's anyone's guess what is appropriate for wal_keep_segments."
Regards, Phil.
