Re: Conflict with recovery on PG version 11.6 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Kyotaro Horiguchi
Subject Re: Conflict with recovery on PG version 11.6
Date
Msg-id 20200619.151301.1212338526785241016.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Conflict with recovery on PG version 11.6  (Toomas Kristin <toomas.kristin@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Conflict with recovery on PG version 11.6  (Toomas Kristin <toomas.kristin@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
At Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:29:49 +0300, Toomas Kristin <toomas.kristin@gmail.com> wrote in 
> Hi,
> 
> > There can be other reasons:
> > 
> > - replicated ACCESS EXCLUSIVE locks that conflict with queries
> > - replicated ACCESS EXCLUSIVE locks that cause deadlocks
> > - buffer pins that are needed for replication but held by a query
> > - dropped tablespaces that hold temporary files on the standby
> 
> Thank you for ideas what to verify.
> 
> > I told you the remedies above, why don't you like them?
> 
> Basically I want to achieve situation where replication is not suspended  (lag is not more than 3 minutes) and
statementson standby are not terminated. Based on collected information I don’t see any connection between vacuuming on
masterand termination of statements on standby. I can temporarily disable vacuuming in order to be 100% sure this is
thecase. And when I set max_standby_streaming_delay either -1 or as a very big number then it helps avoid query
terminationbut doesn’t help me about suspended replication. All worked with same configuration on Postgres version
10.6,the issue started after version upgrade.
 
> 
> This is the reason why I am very keen to find out real cause for the conflict.

FWIW in case you haven't tried yet, if you could find a DETAILS: line
following to the ERROR: canceling.." message in server log, it would
narrow the possibility.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Srinivasa T N
Date:
Subject: HASH partitioning not working properly
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: HASH partitioning not working properly