On 27.04.2012 17:16, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM, <petteri.raty@aalto.fi> wrote:
>
>> LOG: entering standby mode
>> WARNING: WAL was generated with wal_level=minimal, data may be missing
>> HINT: This happens if you temporarily set wal_level=minimal without taking
>> a new base backup.
>> FATAL: hot standby is not possible because wal_level was not set to
>> "hot_standby" on the master server
>> HINT: Either set wal_level to "hot_standby" on the master, or turn off
>> hot_standby here.
>> LOG: startup process (PID 28761) exited with exit code 1
>> LOG: aborting startup due to startup process failure
>>
>> The error message above on the FATAL line is wrong (or at least misleading).
>> The real problem should be that it can't connect to the master. The
>> wal_level on the master is hot_standby (captured after I started it):
>
> The HINT that we should simply set something on the master is a little
> misleading with respect to timing. However, if the master and the
> standby aren't even connected and you know that, how did you expect
> there to be a causal link between the setting on the master and the
> state of the standby?
>
I started investigating after seeing that it didn't start up and found
that the master had a firewall preventing from connecting to the port
where I had setup postgres to listen.
>
> What do you suggest the messages say?
>
If the slave had no way to connect to the master then how can the slave
tell how "hot_standby" is configured there? I am expecting the message
to tell me that it can't connect to the master.
Regards,
Petteri
