Hi, Mark.
At Thu, 29 Feb 2024 04:39:49 +0000, Mark Schloss <Mark.Schloss@austrac.gov.au> wrote in
> Thanks for looking at this. I think I complicated things by
> including barman. I was just wanting to point out each primary
> streams to two locations - the walreceiver on the replica and the
> walreciver used by barman. We think the reason the barman
> WAL-receiver didn't fail is because there is no apply of the WAL in
> Barman but the Standby is applying and it's WAL-receiver got
> terminated, so the barman server can be taken out of this picture
> completely, they were just there as a by-product in trying to
> determine the effect. We are only interested in the killing of the
> standby wal-receiver and that the pg_waldump showed the failing lsn
> was a commit.
It seems that an issue raised in the -hackers thread [1] might be the
same issue as yours. The discussion might be a help for you, although
it's not clear what is happening yet.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFh8B%3DmozC%2Be1wGJq0H%3D0O65goZju%2B6ab5AU7DEWCSUA2OtwDg%40mail.gmail.com
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center