2015-05-22 18:36 GMT+02:00 Piotr Gasidło <qua...@barbara.eu.org>: > 2015-05-22 6:55 GMT+02:00 Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com>: > > > > 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. -- Guillaume. http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com
