Thanks John, Well that clarifies about archive a lot!
On 22 Nov 2016 22:22, "John R Pierce" wrote:
On 11/22/2016 3:41 AM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
> John,
>
> Can you explain the Wal Archive procedure, how it can be setup so that
> the slave never goes out of sync, even if master deletes
On 11/22/2016 3:41 AM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
John,
Can you explain the Wal Archive procedure, how it can be setup so that
the slave never goes out of sync, even if master deletes the WAL
files?
The WAL archive will typically be a separate file server that both the
master and slave ca
On 11/22/2016 2:34 AM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
So, the question here is while I apply update on Slave, how do I know
if if it will be able to catch up or I need Wal archive? Is there a
way I can determine this? In my case, while applying update on slave,
the db process will be stopped, so
John,
Can you explain the Wal Archive procedure, how it can be setup so that
the slave never goes out of sync, even if master deletes the WAL
files?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay
wrote:
> So, the question here is while I apply update on Slave, how do I know
> if if it
So, the question here is while I apply update on Slave, how do I know
if if it will be able to catch up or I need Wal archive? Is there a
way I can determine this? In my case, while applying update on slave,
the db process will be stopped, so the query, even if it gives correct
value, won't help. C
On 11/20/2016 11:00 PM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
Yes so if the slave is behind I need to start over pgbasebackup. I saw
according to the documentation this query gives us the replication
state. Can somebody tell me if this would be sufficient to know if I
need to start over the backup ?
Yes so if the slave is behind I need to start over pgbasebackup. I saw
according to the documentation this query gives us the replication state.
Can somebody tell me if this would be sufficient to know if I need to start
over the backup ?
On 21 Nov 2016 12:18, "John R Pierce" wrote:
> On 11/20/2
On 11/20/2016 10:37 PM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
We are using the database in a cloud setup and the nodes are running
in VMs. The slave can fall behind for various reasons as you have
stated, like slave is shut down or high write workload.
We don't use replication slot but the wal_keep_seg
Hi John,
We are using the database in a cloud setup and the nodes are running
in VMs. The slave can fall behind for various reasons as you have
stated, like slave is shut down or high write workload.
We don't use replication slot but the wal_keep_segments is high enough
for us, 5000 to be exact.
On 11/20/2016 10:00 PM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
Thanks for reply. In situations where slave is behind master, if I
don't start over, will it catch up automatically?
I am using 9.4 version.
it should stay within a few seconds under normal conditions. why is it
falling behind, is your w
Hi John,
Thanks for reply. In situations where slave is behind master, if I
don't start over, will it catch up automatically?
I am using 9.4 version.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:22 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/20/2016 9:29 PM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
>>
>> We have setup PostgreSQL mast
On 11/20/2016 9:29 PM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay wrote:
We have setup PostgreSQL master-slave topology with Streaming
replication setup.
One of the steps for setting up streaming replication is to do
pg_basebackup on slave from master.
For subsequent update of this database, this step is repeated
12 matches
Mail list logo
