Hello all,
I had posted this to dba.stackexchange but haven't gotten any responses, so I thought the list here may be more
focusedand have a better shot to post this.
I'll start by noting that I am still somewhat green with Postgres... One of our applications requires it, so I have
beenlearning as I go...
Right now I am working on a postgres 9.2 Active/Standby cluster on Debian wheezy to make the application more fault
tolerent,based off of the ClusterLabs pgsql cluster documentation
[http://clusterlabs.org/wiki/PgSQL_Replicated_Cluster].
In the lab, I am able to get this setup and working without a problem; But on the pre-production cluster, I keep
runninginto a wal sync error.
I brought the database files over from the current single production postgres server. By this I mean I shutdown
postgresand tar-ed up the data directory and copied it over the the cluster's Master node. I put the files in place,
setthe permissions, and was able to start-up postgres on the Master via corosync just fine.
In preparing the slave, I used the pg_basebackup tool to bring the database over from the Master and this is where I
keephaving issues. As it is transferring, at about 57% I see the error:
> $ pg_basebackup -h db-master -U u_repl -D /db/data/postgresql/9.2/main/ -X stream -P
> pg_basebackup: could not receive data from WAL stream: SSL connection has been closed unexpectedly
> 176472/176472 kB (100%), 1/1 tablespace
> pg_basebackup: child process exited with error 1`
And on the server, I see:
> 2016-04-06 21:05:31 UTC LOG: terminating walsender process due to replication timeout
But the transfer doesn't stop and keeps going to completion.
I found this [http://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/59916/streaming-replication-log-is-puzzling-me] question on
stackexchangeabout setting "ssl_renegotiation_limit" to 0, but this didn't make much difference.
Anyone have any ideas? I didn't find any reference to this problem in the mailing list archives. I am completely
baffledas to why this would error, but keep on going. Maybe this isn't a problem at all? It is the same procedure I
usedin the lab setup... the only difference is that the production database is much bigger in size.
Any thoughts??
-With kind regards, Peter.
