Re: pg_basebackup and wal streaming
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_basebackup and wal streaming |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEyAbT+sS_4j7dXeHndnDLZ5B1uTSDzDdAkeWzu2JmOygg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_basebackup and wal streaming (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 20:59, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 20:48, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2011-02-26 18:19, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> >>> Attached is an updated version of the patch that includes these >>> changes, as well as Windows support and an initial cut at a ref page >>> for pg_receivexlog (needs some more detail still). >> >> I'm testing a bit more (with the previous version, sorry) and got the >> following while doing a stream backup from a cluster that was at that moment >> doing a pgbench run with 1 synchronous standby. >> >> mgrid@mg79:~$ pg_basebackup --xlog=stream -D /data -vP -h mg73 -U repuser >> Password: >> xlog start point: 15/720000C8 >> pg_basebackup: starting background WAL receiver >> pg_basebackup: got WAL data offset 14744, expected 16791960424 ) >> 5148915/5148026 kb g(100%) 1/1 tablespaces >> xlog end point: 15/80568878 >> pg_basebackup: waiting for background process to finish streaming... >> pg_basebackup: child process exited with error 1 > > Hmm, strange. What platform are you on? > > I saw something similar *once* on Windows, but it then passed my tests > a lot of times in a row so I figured it was just a "didn't clean > properly" thing. Clearly there's a bug around. > > What's the size of the latest WAL file that it did work on? Is it > 16791960424 bytes? That's way way to large, but perhaps it's not > switching segment properly? (that value is supposedly the current > write position in the file..) > > >> I'm in total monkey test mode here, so I don't even know if I'm not supposed >> to do the streaming variant while other stuff is going on. > > Oh yes, that's one of the main reasons to use it, so you should > definitely be able to do that! > I've posted a new version of this patch at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00776.php - forgot there was an open thread on this, sorry. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: