At Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:16:40 +0900, Fujii Masao <> wrote 
in <>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Munro
> <> wrote:
> > Hi hackers,
> >
> > If you shut down a primary server, a standby that is streaming from it 
> > says54:
> >
> > LOG:  replication terminated by primary server
> > DETAIL:  End of WAL reached on timeline 1 at 0/14F4B68.
> > FATAL:  could not send end-of-streaming message to primary: no COPY in 
> > progress
> >
> > Isn't that FATAL ereport a bug?
> ISTM that the cause is that walsender exits and replication connection is
> closed just after "COPY 0" is sent. That is, then after receiving "COPY 0",
> walreceiver tries to send an end-of-copy message to the primary, but fails
> because the connection has been already closed.

Though the message is followed by repetitions of other FATAL
messages, the message above itself seems a bit alarming.

> > How is clean server shutdown supposed to work?
> One option is to make walsender wait for end-of-copy message from walreceiver
> before it closes the connection and exits, after sending "COPY 0" message.
> But one question is; how should walsender behave when walreceiver gets stuck
> and cannot reply an end-of-copy message to walsender? Probably we need
> the timeout (maybe we can use wal_sender_timeout here but not sure yet
> if it's appropriate or not).

-1. It is totally useless other than to avoid the FATAL message.

> Another option is to prevent walreceiver from sending an end-of-copy message.
> If "COPY 0" always means the exit of walsender and the termination of
> the connection, there seems to be no need to send back an end-of-copy message.
> I've not checked yet how this interferes with other replication logics, 
> though.

Looking into walsender.c, walsender thinks "COPY 0" is a signal
of its death coming just after, that is, proc_exit(0).

On the other hand the comment at the beginning of walreceiver.c
says that,

 * If the primary server ends streaming, but doesn't disconnect, walreceiver
 * goes into "waiting" mode, and waits for the startup process to give new
 * instructions. The startup process will treat that the same as
 * disconnection, and will rescan the archive/pg_xlog directory. But when the
 * startup process wants to try streaming replication again, it will just
 * nudge the existing walreceiver process that's waiting, instead of launching
 * a new one.

If we assume this is an useful behavior and want to keep it, a
termination after an end of XLOG streaming is just the same with
that for psql.

| FATAL:  terminating connection due to administrator command
| server closed the connection unexpectedly
|         This probably means the server terminated abnormally
|         before or while processing the request.

Or, we should provide another command to inform a termination.


Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to