On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:31 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
dep...@depesz.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:29:24PM +0530, Raghavendra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:18 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
dep...@depesz.com wrote:
We are seeing situation like this:
1. 9.2.4 database
2.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:30:22PM +0530, Amit Langote wrote:
Increasing the wal_keep_segments ?
I know that I can increase wal_keep_segments to solve it, but
shouldn't it be *impossible* to happen with synchronous replication?
After all - all commits should wait for slave to be 100% up to
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
dep...@depesz.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:29:24PM +0530, Raghavendra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:18 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
dep...@depesz.com wrote:
Yet, every now and then we're getting:
FATAL: requested
We are seeing situation like this:
1. 9.2.4 database
2. Master settings:
name|setting
---+---
fsync | on
synchronize_seqscans | on
synchronous_commit| remote_write
synchronous_standby_names | *
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:18 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
dep...@depesz.com wrote:
We are seeing situation like this:
1. 9.2.4 database
2. Master settings:
name|setting
---+---
fsync | on
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:29:24PM +0530, Raghavendra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:18 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
dep...@depesz.com wrote:
We are seeing situation like this:
1. 9.2.4 database
2. Master settings:
name|setting
