On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Sergey Koposov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 May 2013, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
>
>> Its definitely not a bug. You need to set/increase wal_keep_segments
>> to a value that ensures that they aren't recycled faster than the time
>> required to complete the base backup (plus
That's a good point. Then i dunno, perhaps it is a bug, but I'd be
surprised if this wasn't working, as its not really a corner case that
could be missed in testing, as long as all the options were exercised.
Hopefully someone else can weigh in.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Sergey Koposov
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
Its definitely not a bug. You need to set/increase wal_keep_segments
to a value that ensures that they aren't recycled faster than the time
required to complete the base backup (plus some buffer).
But I thought that wal_keep_segments is not needed
Its definitely not a bug. You need to set/increase wal_keep_segments
to a value that ensures that they aren't recycled faster than the time
required to complete the base backup (plus some buffer).
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Sergey Koposov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've recently started to use pg_ba
