On 27.04.2012 17:16, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM, <petteri.r...@aalto.fi> wrote: > >> LOG: entering standby mode >> WARNING: WAL was generated with wal_level=minimal, data may be missing >> HINT: This happens if you temporarily set wal_level=minimal without taking >> a new base backup. >> FATAL: hot standby is not possible because wal_level was not set to >> "hot_standby" on the master server >> HINT: Either set wal_level to "hot_standby" on the master, or turn off >> hot_standby here. >> LOG: startup process (PID 28761) exited with exit code 1 >> LOG: aborting startup due to startup process failure >> >> The error message above on the FATAL line is wrong (or at least misleading). >> The real problem should be that it can't connect to the master. The >> wal_level on the master is hot_standby (captured after I started it): > > The HINT that we should simply set something on the master is a little > misleading with respect to timing. However, if the master and the > standby aren't even connected and you know that, how did you expect > there to be a causal link between the setting on the master and the > state of the standby? >
I started investigating after seeing that it didn't start up and found that the master had a firewall preventing from connecting to the port where I had setup postgres to listen. > > What do you suggest the messages say? > If the slave had no way to connect to the master then how can the slave tell how "hot_standby" is configured there? I am expecting the message to tell me that it can't connect to the master. Regards, Petteri -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
