>
> I use a bash script to ship them. The script hasn't being changed.... So
> it isn't the problem.
>
>
> *postgresql.conf:*
>
>> archive_command = 'exec nice -n 19 ionice -c 2 -n 7 archive_command.bash
>> "%p" slave01 slave02'
>
> *archive_command.bash:*
>
> Basically we use TAR to ship through ssh:
>
>> # we use tar over SSH as I don't fully trust scp's exit status. The added
>> benefit is that tar preserves all attributes
>> # the downside is that it's a little tricky to make the remote path
>> relative
>> tar -c -O --no-same-owner -C "${WAL_SEGMENT%/*}" "${WAL_SEGMENT##*/}" |
>> ssh -p ${NEXT_PORT} -C -o 'BatchMode=yes' -o 'CompressionLevel=3'
>> "${USER}@${NEXT_HOST}"
>> "exec tar -x --no-same-owner --overwrite -C '${WAL_ARCHIVE_PATH}'";
>> PS_CONCAT="${PIPESTATUS[*]}";
>
>
> The script is complex, but as I said, nothing has been changed on it.
>
Not sure why the script is so complex. Do you see any messages in the
postgresql log file on master ? and on slave ? which indicates the reason
for delayed shipping of WAL archives. Did you notice any network level
issues ?
Regards,
Venkata B N
Fujitsu Australia
