On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 9/26/16 8:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila
On 9/26/16 8:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>> IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint
>>> correctly, can
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint
>> correctly, can you check if that solves the problem for you?
>>
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint
> correctly, can you check if that solves the problem for you?
>
> [1] -
>
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> There is apparently some misbehavior if max_wal_size is less than 5 *
>> wal_segment_size.
>>
>
>> This should
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> There is apparently some misbehavior if max_wal_size is less than 5 *
> wal_segment_size.
>
> For example, if you build with --with-wal-segsize=64, then the recovery
> test fails unless you set
There is apparently some misbehavior if max_wal_size is less than 5 *
wal_segment_size.
For example, if you build with --with-wal-segsize=64, then the recovery
test fails unless you set max_wal_size to at least 320MB in
PostgresNode.pm. The issue is that pg_basebackup fails with:
pg_basebackup: