Обсуждение: Restart replicated slave procedure

Joseph Kregloh <jkregloh@sproutloud.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Currently I am doing asynchronous replication from master to
> slave. Now if I restart the slave it will fall out of sync with the
> master. Is there a correct procedure or set of steps to avoid this? I
> am looking for best practices or suggestions. Whenever my slave fell
> out of sync I would either issue a new pg_base_backup() or set the
> master to pg_start_backup() do an rsync and stop using
> pg_stop_backup(). If there is a way to avoid any of that, for example
> pause replication to hold all the wal files until the replicated slave
> comes back and then release them once the replicated slave is up.
>
> I apologize if this question has already been asked. I did some searching beforehand.

See the manual and read up on the 2 GUCs; archive_command and wal_keep_segments.

wal_keep_segments lets you hold a configurable number of WAL segments
back and buy some more time till you have to resync the stand bys.

Setting archive_command to '' or something like '/bin/false' lets you
delay archiving forever till you change them back again and/or fill
whatever file system pg_xlog writes to :-)

>
> Thanks,
> -Joseph Kregloh
>

--
Jerry Sievers
Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
e: postgres.consulting@comcast.net
p: 312.241.7800

Yes, changing archive_command to '' or something that returns false will
let you queue the WALs until reverting the change.

I am assuming you run a version where the archive_mode setting exists
which will be set to 'on' and left that way.

Joseph Kregloh <jkregloh@sproutloud.com> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>     Joseph Kregloh <jkregloh@sproutloud.com> writes:
>
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > Currently I am doing asynchronous replication from master to
>     > slave. Now if I restart the slave it will fall out of sync with the
>     > master. Is there a correct procedure or set of steps to avoid this? I
>     > am looking for best practices or suggestions. Whenever my slave fell
>     > out of sync I would either issue a new pg_base_backup() or set the
>     > master to pg_start_backup() do an rsync and stop using
>     > pg_stop_backup(). If there is a way to avoid any of that, for example
>     > pause replication to hold all the wal files until the replicated slave
>     > comes back and then release them once the replicated slave is up.
>     >
>     > I apologize if this question has already been asked. I did some searching beforehand.
>
>     See the manual and read up on the 2 GUCs; archive_command and wal_keep_segments.
>
> Thanks, i'll read into this some more.
>  
>
>     wal_keep_segments lets you hold a configurable number of WAL segments
>     back and buy some more time till you have to resync the stand bys.
>
>     Setting archive_command to '' or something like '/bin/false' lets you
>     delay archiving forever till you change them back again and/or fill
>     whatever file system pg_xlog writes to :-)
>
> So disabling the archive_command by setting it to and empty string or /bin/false will effectively pause log shipping? When I re-enable the archive command will it
> continue where it left of when the archive_command was "disabled"?
>
>  
>
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > -Joseph Kregloh
>     >
>
>     --
>     Jerry Sievers
>     Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
>     e: postgres.consulting@comcast.net
>     p: 312.241.7800
>

--
Jerry Sievers
e: jerry.sievers@comcast.net
p: 312.241.7800

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19@comcast.net> wrote:

Joseph Kregloh <jkregloh@sproutloud.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Currently I am doing asynchronous replication from master to
> slave. Now if I restart the slave it will fall out of sync with the
> master. Is there a correct procedure or set of steps to avoid this? I
> am looking for best practices or suggestions. Whenever my slave fell
> out of sync I would either issue a new pg_base_backup() or set the
> master to pg_start_backup() do an rsync and stop using
> pg_stop_backup(). If there is a way to avoid any of that, for example
> pause replication to hold all the wal files until the replicated slave
> comes back and then release them once the replicated slave is up.
>
> I apologize if this question has already been asked. I did some searching beforehand.

See the manual and read up on the 2 GUCs; archive_command and wal_keep_segments.

Thanks, i'll read into this some more.

 

wal_keep_segments lets you hold a configurable number of WAL segments
back and buy some more time till you have to resync the stand bys.

Setting archive_command to '' or something like '/bin/false' lets you
delay archiving forever till you change them back again and/or fill
whatever file system pg_xlog writes to :-)

So disabling the archive_command by setting it to and empty string or /bin/false will effectively pause log shipping? When I re-enable the archive command will it continue where it left of when the archive_command was "disabled"?

 

>
> Thanks,
> -Joseph Kregloh
>

--
Jerry Sievers
Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
e: postgres.consulting@comcast.net
p: 312.241.7800