Re: pg_basebackup, requested WAL has already been removed - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Sergey Koposov |
---|---|
Subject | Re: pg_basebackup, requested WAL has already been removed |
Date | |
Msg-id | alpine.LRH.2.03.1305101758220.15822@ast.cam.ac.uk Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: pg_basebackup, requested WAL has already been removed (Lonni J Friedman <netllama@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: pg_basebackup, requested WAL has already been removed
(Lonni J Friedman <netllama@gmail.com>)
Re: pg_basebackup, requested WAL has already been removed (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
List | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Lonni J Friedman wrote: > Its definitely not a bug. You need to set/increase wal_keep_segments > to a value that ensures that they aren't recycled faster than the time > required to complete the base backup (plus some buffer). But I thought that wal_keep_segments is not needed for the streaming regime ( "--xlog-method=stream") And the documentation http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/app-pgbasebackup.html only mentions wal_keep_segments when talking about --xlog-method=fetch. > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Sergey Koposov <koposov@ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've recently started to use pg_basebackup --xlog-method=stream to backup my >> multi-Tb database. >> Before I did the backup when there was not much activity in the DB and it >> went perfectly fine, but today, I've started the backup and it failed twice >> almost at the same time as the >> CREATE INDEX (and another time CLUSTER) commands were finished. >> >> Here: >> >> postgres@cappc118:/mnt/backup/wsdb_130510$ pg_basebackup >> --xlog-method=stream --progress --verbose --pg >> transaction log start point: 23AE/BD003E70 >> pg_basebackup: starting background WAL receiver >> pg_basebackup: unexpected termination of replication stream: FATAL: >> requested WAL segment 00000001000023B1000000FE has already been removed >> 4819820/16816887078 kB (4%), 0/1 tablespace >> (/mnt/backup/wsdb_130510/base/1) >> >> And the logs from around that time contained: >> >> some_user:wsdb:2013-05-10 14:35:41 BST:10587LOG: duration: 40128.163 ms >> statement: CREATE INDEX usno_cle >> an_q3c_idx ON usno_clean (q3c_ang2ipix(ra,dec)); >> ::2013-05-10 14:35:43 BST:25529LOG: checkpoints are occurring too >> frequently (8 seconds apart) >> ::2013-05-10 14:35:43 BST:25529HINT: Consider increasing the configuration >> parameter "checkpoint_segmen >> ts". >> ::2013-05-10 14:35:51 BST:25529LOG: checkpoints are occurring too >> frequently (8 seconds apart) >> ::2013-05-10 14:35:51 BST:25529HINT: Consider increasing the configuration >> parameter "checkpoint_segmen >> ts". >> postgres:[unknown]:2013-05-10 14:35:55 BST:8177FATAL: requested WAL segment >> 00000001000023B1000000FE has already been removed >> some_user:wsdb:2013-05-10 14:36:59 BST:10599LOG: duration: 78378.194 ms >> statement: CLUSTER usno_clean_q3c_idx ON usno_clean; >> >> One the previous occasion when it happened the CREATE INDEX() was being >> executed: >> >> some_user:wsdb:2013-05-10 09:17:20 BST:3300LOG: duration: 67.680 ms >> statement: SELECT name FROM (SELECT pg_catalog.lower(name) AS name FROM >> pg_catalog.pg_settings UNION ALL SELECT 'session authorization' UNION >> ALL SELECT 'all') ss WHERE substring(name,1,4)='rand' >> LIMIT 1000 >> ::2013-05-10 09:22:47 BST:25529LOG: checkpoints are occurring too >> frequently (18 seconds apart) >> ::2013-05-10 09:22:47 BST:25529HINT: Consider increasing the configuration >> parameter "checkpoint_segments". >> postgres:[unknown]:2013-05-10 09:22:49 BST:27659FATAL: requested WAL >> segment 000000010000239900000040 has already been removed >> some_user:wsdb:2013-05-10 09:22:57 BST:3236LOG: duration: 542955.262 ms >> statement: CREATE INDEX xmatch_temp_usnoid_idx ON xmatch_temp (usno_id); >> >> The .configuration >> PG 9.2.4, Debian 7.0, amd64 >> >> shared_buffers = 10GB >> work_mem = 1GB >> maintenance_work_mem = 1GB >> effective_io_concurrency = 5 >> synchronous_commit = off >> checkpoint_segments = 32 >> max_wal_senders = 2 >> effective_cache_size = 30GB >> autovacuum_max_workers = 3 >> wal_level=archive >> archive_mode = off >> >> Does it look like a bug or am I missing something ? >> >> Thanks, >> Sergey >> >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > L. Friedman netllama@gmail.com > LlamaLand https://netllama.linux-sxs.org >
pgsql-general by date: