Re: [HACKERS] WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep.

Hello, At Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:16:22 -0800, Andres Freund wrote in <20161118181622.hklschaizwaxo...@alap3.anarazel.de> > Hi, > > On 2016-11-18 14:12:42 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync > > replication set. This

Re: [HACKERS] WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep.

Thanks for the comment. At Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:06:55 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote in > > We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync > > replication set. This is not a bug and a bit

Re: [HACKERS] WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep.

Hi, On 2016-11-18 14:12:42 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync > replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is > contrary to expectation on synchronous replication. I don't think you can expect anything else. > This

Re: [HACKERS] WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep.

On 18 Nov. 2016 13:14, "Kyotaro HORIGUCHI" wrote: > > Hello. > > We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync > replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is > contrary to expectation on synchronous replication. Isn't this

[HACKERS] WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep.

Hello. We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is contrary to expectation on synchronous replication. > FATAL: could not receive data from WAL stream: ERROR: requested WAL segment > 00010088