Can frequent database operations cause getting a standby server behind? Is there a way to avoid this situation? I checked that walsender works well in my test if I set wal_sender_timeout at least to 5 second.
Best regards, Andrei Yahorau
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> To: AYahorau@ibagroup.eu, Cc: rene.romero.b@gmail.com, pgsql-general@postgresql.org Date: 16/05/2019 10:36 Subject: Re: terminating walsender process due to replication timeout
Hello.
At Wed, 15 May 2019 10:04:12 +0300, AYahorau@ibagroup.eu wrote in <OF99D0D839.6A5BCB70-ON432583FB.0025912E-432583FB.0026D664@iba.by> > Hello, > Thank You for the response. > > Yes that's possible to monitor replication delay. But my questions were > not about monitoring network issues. > > I use exactly wal_sender_timeout=1s because it allows to detect > replication problems quickly.
Though I don't have an exact idea of your configuration, it seems to me that your standby is simply getting behind more than one second from the master. If you regard the fact as a problem of replication, the configuration can be said to be finding the problem correctly.
Since the keep-alive packet is sent in-band, it doesn't get to the standby before already-sent-but-not-processed packets.
> So, I need clarification to the following questions: > Is it possible to use exactly this configuration and be sure that it will > be work properly. > What did I do wrong? Should I correct my configuration somehow? > Is this the same issue as mentioned here: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e082a56a-fd95-a250-3bae-0fff93832510@2ndquadrant.com > ? If it is so, why I do I face this problem again?
It is not the same "problem". What was mentioned there is fast network making the sender-side loop busy, which prevents keepalive packet from sending.
regards.
-- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
