2016-11-29 23:59 GMT+13:00 Patrick B <patrickbake...@gmail.com>: > > > 2016-11-29 16:36 GMT+13:00 David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com>: > >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Patrick B <patrickbake...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Ho >>> [w] >>> is that even possible?? I don't understand! >>> >>> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/warm-standby.html >> """ >> >> If you use streaming replication without file-based continuous archiving, >> you have to set wal_keep_segments in the master to a value high enough to >> ensure that old WAL segments are not recycled too early, while the standby >> might still need them to catch up. If the standby falls behind too much, it >> needs to be reinitialized from a new base backup. If you set up a WAL >> archive that's accessible from the standby, wal_keep_segments is not >> required as the standby can always use the archive to catch up. >> """ >> >> Basically you did just that when you destroyed the archive. Apparently >> the master doesn't churn through WAL quickly enough to have had to discard >> the segments from the prior two hours. >> >> David J. >> >> >> > > That was really helpful! Thanks David! > > Patrick > >
Hey guys, https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/runtime-config-replication.html wal_keep_segments is the parameter responsible for streaming replication be able to recover itself without using wal_files, is that right?
