Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 08/12/2018 02:56 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
>> Anyway. Do others agree that my issue was the result of
>> wal_keep_segments=0 ?
>
> Only as a sub-issue of the slave losing contact with the master. The
> basic problem is maintaining two separate operations, archiving and
> streaming, in sync. If either or some combination of both lose
> synchronization then it is anyone's guess on what is appropriate for
> wal_keep_segments.
Really? I thought the intention was that the system should be
able to recover reliably when the slave reconnects after a
period of downtime, subject only to there being sufficient
network/CPU/disk bandwidth etc. for it to eventually catch up.
If that's not true, I think the docs need an even more extensive
overhaul! Suggestion for the paragraph that I quoted before from
26.2.5:
"If you set up a WAL archive that's accessible from the standby,
it's anyone's guess what is appropriate for wal_keep_segments."
Regards, Phil.