Hello,
Thank You for the response.
Yes that's possible to monitor replication delay. But my questions were
not about monitoring network issues.
I use exactly wal_sender_timeout=1s because it allows to detect
replication problems quickly.
So, I need clarification to the following questions:
Is it possible to use exactly this configuration and be sure that
it will be work properly.
What did I do wrong? Should I correct my configuration somehow?
Is this the same issue as mentioned here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e082a56a-fd95-a250-3bae-0fff93832510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
? If it is so, why I do I face this
problem again?
Thank you in advance.
Best regards,
Andrei
From:
Rene Romero Benavides
<rene.romero.b@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
AYahorau@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Cc:
Postgres General <pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
14/05/2019 20:12
Subject:
Re: terminating
walsender process due to replication timeout
To detect network issues maybe you could monitor replication
delay.
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:42 AM <AYahorau@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello PostgreSQL Community!
I faced an issue on my linux machine using Postgres 11.3 .
I have 2 nodes in db cluster: master and standby.
I tried to perform a plenty of long-running queries which lead to
the databases desynchronization:
terminating walsender process due to replication timeout
Here is the output in debug mode:
2019-05-13 13:21:33 FET 00000 DEBUG: sending replication keepalive
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: StartTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: DEFAULT; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: CommitTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: END; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: StartTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: DEFAULT; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: CommitTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: END; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: StartTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: DEFAULT; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: CommitTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: END; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: StartTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: DEFAULT; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: CommitTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: END; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: StartTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: DEFAULT; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: CommitTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: END; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: StartTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: DEFAULT; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 DEBUG: CommitTransaction(1) name: unnamed;
blockState: END; state: INPROGRESS, xid/subid/cid: 0/1/0
2019-05-13 13:21:34 FET 00000 LOG: terminating walsender process
due to replication timeout
The issue is reproducible. I configure 2 nodes cluster, download demo_small.zip
from https://edu.postgrespro.ru/
and run the following command:
psql -U user1 -f demo_small.sql db1
and I get the observed behaviour.
I know that I can increase wal_sender_timeout value to avoid this behaviour
(currently wal_sender_timeout is equal to 1 second.)
To be honest I don't want to increase wal_sender_timeout because I would
like to detect some network issues quickly.
After having googled I found that someone faced a similar issue https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e082a56a-fd95-a250-3bae-0fff93832510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
which was fixed in PostgreSQL 9.4.16.
Is my issue the same as described here https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e082a56a-fd95-a250-3bae-0fff93832510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
?
Is there any other chance to avoid it without increasing wal_sender_timeout?
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Andrei
--
El genio es 1% inspiración y 99% transpiración.
Thomas Alva Edison
http://pglearn.blogspot.mx/
