Re: Setting up streaming replication with new server as master?

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Keith <keith@keithf4.com> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Dave Johansen <davejohansen@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 6:38 PM, John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com> wrote:

If you specify -X f or more likely -X s, that will cause pg_basebackup to include the WAL files that were written after you started the operation. Since you're setting up a replica, use the -X s option as that's for streaming.

I ran pg_basebackup with -X s and it finished in the middle of the night last night. I would now like to make the switch, but what's the best way to copy over the records that have been inserted since the backup stopped?

The -Xs option just keeps the WAL files that were written during the backup run so that if you restore it, it's brought back up to a consistent state at the point when the backup itself finished.

If you want to be able to bring up a slave from a backup at any point after that backup was complete, you have to keep all the WAL files that have been written since then. This is what is called Point-In-Time Recovery (PITR). I highly recommend you read up on the docs for how WAL files in postgres work and how to use them with backups and slaves. I think that is a key point your missing in understanding how to get a streaming slave set up and working.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/continuous-archiving.html

Ok, that was a misunderstanding on my part. I had understood that with the -Xs option pg_basebackup would stay online and keep streaming the WAL files until it was turned off. Thanks for the clarification, but on a related note, that would be a really nice feature that would make doing this sort of replication a lot easier.

I have run into another issue now though. I'm trying to start up the server after running pg_basebackup and it keeps timing out. Do I have something setup incorrectly? Or what is causing this issue?