On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Ants Aasma <a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>> it doesn't say that is not possible to use this for a standby >>> server... probably that's why i get the error i put a recovery.conf >>> after pg_basebackup finished... maybe we can say that more loudly? >> >> The idea is, if you use it with -x (or --xlog), it's for taking a >> backup/clone, *not* for replication. >> >> If you use it without -x, then you can use it as the start of a >> replica, by adding a recovery.conf. >> >> But you can't do both at once, that will confuse it. > > I stumbled upon this again today. There's nothing in the docs that > would even hint that using -x shouldn't work to create a replica. Why > does it get confused and can we (easily) make it not get confused? At > the very least it needs a big fat warning in documentation for the -x > option that the resulting backup might not be usable as a standby.
Unless I'm missing something, you can use pg_basebackup -x for the standby. If lots of WAL files are generated in the master after pg_basebackup -x ends and before you start the standby instance, you may get the following error. In this case, you need to consult with archived WAL files even though you specified -x option in pg_basebackup. > FATAL: could not receive data from WAL stream: FATAL: requested WAL > segment 00000001000000000000005C has already been removed Though we have the above problem, pg_basebackup -x is usable for the standby, I think. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
