On 11/25/25 23:27, Andrew wrote: > Hi, > > I’m using Postgres 17 and the latest versions of repmgr and barman > > 1. I’m replicating my database to another node using streaming replication. wal_level=replica, hot_standby=on. > 2. I’ve got barman running on the primary node locally and have setup the barman config for streaming replication using streaming archiver and backup method Postgres. Previous to this I was using the archive and restore commands in postgresql.conf to use barman-wal-archive|restore to copy the wal files to barman’s wal folder. > 3. Barman is on node 1 where the primary is running. The replica database used by repmgr is on node 2. > 4. My archive command is still configured to use barman-wal-archive despite having moved to a streaming replication method in barman. > > So my question is, can I disable the archive command now that I am using streaming?
I am not going to straight up say you can disable the archive command as I will not be the one that has to bear the consequences.
What I will say:
1) Have you tested that the Barman, repmgr setups work to do a recovery?
2) Are the two archive processes(streaming replication, barman-wal-archive) going to different locations?
3) There is also the question of whether the two archive methods are in sync. In other words would you get the same restore if used either at some point in time?
My personal opinion is you would be best served by having only one tested process working.
I wonder if a non-streaming backup program like pgbackrest would simplify things. It would eliminate one stream, and remove the need to manage the wal archive (since pgbr does all that for you in its own separate repository).
