On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 03:33:22PM PDT, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 03/02/2015 03:25 PM, David Kerr wrote:
> >
> >Howdy,
> >
> >I had an instance where a replica fell out of sync with the master.
> >
> >Now it's in in a state where it's unable to catch up because the master has already removed the WAL segment.
> >
> >(logs)
> >Mar 2 23:10:13 db13 postgres[11099]: [3-1] user=,db=,host= LOG: streaming replication successfully connected to
primary
> >Mar 2 23:10:13 db13 postgres[11099]: [4-1] user=,db=,host= FATAL: could not receive data from WAL stream: FATAL:
requestedWAL segment 000000060000047C0000001F has already been removed
> >
> >
> >I was under the impression that when you setup streaming replication if you specify a restore command like :
restore_command= 'cp /arch/%f %p'
> >
> >Then even if the slave falls out of sync, and the master removes the WAL segment, as long as you can still retrieve
theWAL files, then it can bring itself back into sync.
>
> If the archive command is also set so that the restore command has a
> file to retrieve, then yes it will work that way.
Yeah it is, it's actually pulling the file down.
Glad that's how it's supposed to work. I'd rather be unlucky then crazy. =)