Re: strange behavior of WAL files - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Vijaykumar Jain
Subject Re: strange behavior of WAL files
Date
Msg-id CAM+6J96owynpAMcVmvfu_hphUsiRuhTbVtY=4mwbjHnBtnKO3w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: strange behavior of WAL files  (Vijaykumar Jain <vijaykumarjain.github@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
I will try to simulate this and see if i can reproduce it, currently in between difficult interviews where i have little hope :) 


and you can try pg_waldump
to see what is in the WAL, and if you see any issues.





On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 18:45, Vijaykumar Jain <vijaykumarjain.github@gmail.com> wrote:
I have not seen this, so cannot comment, but when I am trying to simulate i do not see issues.

One thing to note, 
It seems your wal is on nfs mount , can you rule out any nfs errors if it is nfs.

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021, 6:24 PM Atul Kumar <akumar14871@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,


archive_command is 'cp %p /nfslogs/wal/%f'

and no, we are not removing anything from pg_xlog directory.

once old WAL files of pg_xlog directory are archived in
'/nfslogs/wal/' directory then these WAL files are getting generated
with the same name in pg_xlog directory.

my query is Why is this happening ?



please help me with your suggestions.


Regards.




On 6/4/21, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:39:30 +0530
> Atul Kumar <akumar14871@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> HI,
>>
>> We have a centos 6 enviornment where postgres 9.6 is running on it.
>>
>> We have strange behavior of WAL files of pg_xlog directory
>>
>> As we have set archive_command to archive WAL files at different
>> location and the archive_command is working fine.
>>
>> So strange behavior is :
>>
>> We have a WAL file say for example "00000001000036CD000000E2" of
>> 01.06.2021 (1st June 2021) that is getting archive successfully at the
>> archive location and once it is archived, this file with same name
>> (00000001000036CD000000E2) is getting generated with the latest
>> timestamp (as today is 04.06.2021).and all old WAL files are behaving
>> in same manner.
>
> What is you archive_command?
>
> I'm not sure I understand correctly, but keep in mind your
> archive_command must be "read only". Do not remove the WAL file after
> archiving
> it.
>
> Regards,
>




--
Thanks,
Vijay
Mumbai, India

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) - puzzling numbers for a simple query.
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) - puzzling numbers for a simple query.