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:

Previous
From: Lonni J Friedman
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup, requested WAL has already been removed
Next
From: Lonni J Friedman
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup, requested WAL has already been removed