Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52CD468E.2010602@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging (Matheus de Oliveira <matioli.matheus@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/08/2014 02:32 PM, Matheus de Oliveira wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Matheus de Oliveira < > matioli.matheus@gmail.com> wrote: > >> How did you set up the standby? Did you initialize it from an offline >>> backup of the master's data directory, perhaps? The log shows that the >>> startup took the the "crash recovery first, then start archive recovery" >>> path, because there was no backup label file. In that mode, the standby >>> assumes that the system is consistent after replaying all the WAL in >>> pg_xlog, which is correct if you initialize from an offline backup or >>> atomic filesystem snapshot, for example. But "WAL contains references to >>> invalid pages" could also be a symptom of an inconsistent base backup, >>> cause by incorrect backup procedure. In particular, I have to ask because >>> I've seen it before: you didn't delete backup_label from the backup, did >>> you? >> >> Well, I cannot answer this right now, but makes all sense and is possible. > > I've just confirmed. That was indeed the case, the script was removing the > backup_label. I've just removed this line and synced it again, it is > running nice (for past 1 hour at least). A-ha! ;-) > Thank you guys for all your help, and sorry for all the confusion I caused. That seems to be a very common mistake to make. I wish we could do something about it. Do you think it would've helped in your case if there was a big fat warning in the beginning of backup_label, along the lines of: "# DO NOT REMOVE THIS FILE FROM A BACKUP" ? Any other ideas how we could've made it more obvious to the script author to not remove it? - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: