I think you are using Log-Shipping not Streaming-Replication http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/different-replication-solutions.html
I would just make 2 copies of the WAL file one for each slave in different folders. That way if one slave is offline for a period of time it can catch up when it comes back online. On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Ben Lancaster <benlancas...@holler.co.uk>wrote: > Hi, > > First post, forgive me if this is better suited to pgsql-general. > > I've got streaming replication set up with two slave servers (PostgreSQL > 9.0 on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS). The master pushes the WAL to an NFS export, which > is in turn mounted on and picked up by the two slaves. > > The problem I have is that pg_archivecleanup (running on one of the slaves) > was removing WAL logs before the other slave had picked up the changes, thus > breaking replication for the second slave. As an interim fix, I simply > disabled the automatic cleanup and figured I'd worry about it later. > > Well, later is now and I'm running out of HDD space. So, what's the best > (or perhaps, correct) way to handle cleaning up WAL archives when there's > more than one slave? My first thought was prefixing the pg_archivecleanup > call in recovery.conf's archive_cleanup_command with a "sleep" of a few > seconds to allow both slaves to pick up changes before WAL files are cleaned > up, but I'm afraid I'll end up with some weird race conditions, with loads > of sleeping processes waiting to cleanup WAL files that have previously been > cleaned up by a recently awoken process. > > Thanks in advance, > > Ben > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin >
