Re: WAL segment not replicated - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Ted EH
Subject Re: WAL segment not replicated
Date
Msg-id CA+G4h2A+n==bHb4s0tW5=5gQp=qaV+9oOU-WL8HPLj4o4dKmMA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WAL segment not replicated  (Ian Barwick <ian.barwick@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-admin
My reason for killing the process is to test behavior in the event of an unclean shutdown.

In the test, I made sure the former primary is being demoted to standby.
 
To keep things simple, I have repeated the test without restarting the former primary, and without pormoting the stby.

Before killing the main pg server process, both primary and stby have 00065 as the latest segment, under pg_wal 

This time all I did is "sudo pkill postmaster", after which under pg_wal

On the stby the latest segment is still 00064, while on the primary it is now 00065

Which means a process continues to run on the primary and creates the next WAL segment (...65). Is this expected? and why? 

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: girish R G peetle
Date:
Subject: pg_dump to fifo file on Linux
Next
From: Mark Kirkwood
Date:
Subject: Re: Reliable WAL file shipping over unreliable network