Re: SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4CCE7791.8050203@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 01.11.2010 09:37, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 31.10.2010 23:31, Greg Smith wrote: >> LOG: replication connection authorized: user=rep host=127.0.0.1 >> port=52571 >> FATAL: requested WAL segment 000000010000000000000000 has already been >> removed >> >> Which is confusing because that file is certainly on the master still, >> and hasn't even been considered archived yet much less removed: >> >> [master@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog >> -rw------- 1 master master 16777216 Oct 31 16:29 000000010000000000000000 >> drwx------ 2 master master 4096 Oct 4 12:28 archive_status >> [master@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog/archive_status/ >> total 0 >> >> So why isn't SR handing that data over? Is there some weird unhandled >> corner case this exposes, but that wasn't encountered by the systems the >> tutorial was tried out on? > > Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very > first WAL segment, with log==seg==0. We keep track of the last removed > WAL segment, and before a piece of WAL is sent to the standby, walsender > checks that the requested WAL segment is > the last removed. Before any > WAL segments have been removed since postmaster startup, the latest > removed segment is initialized to 0/0, with the idea that 0/0 precedes > any valid WAL segment. That's clearly not true though, it does not > precede the very first WAL segment after initdb, 0/0. > > Seems that we need to change the meaning of the last removed WAL segment > to avoid the ambiguity of 0/0. Let's store the (last removed)+1 in the > global variable instead. Committed that. Thanks for the report, both of you. I'm not subscribed to pgsql-admin which is why I didn't see Matt's original report. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: