Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Erik Rijkers
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy
Date
Msg-id c56f1385eacf2a55a6e1aa1d93fe7d6e@xs4all.nl
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-03-06 11:27, Petr Jelinek wrote:

> 0001-Reserve-global-xmin-for-create-slot-snasphot-export.patch +
> 0002-Don-t-use-on-disk-snapshots-for-snapshot-export-in-l.patch+
> 0003-Prevent-snapshot-builder-xmin-from-going-backwards.patch  +
> 0004-Fix-xl_running_xacts-usage-in-snapshot-builder.patch      +
> 0005-Skip-unnecessary-snapshot-builds.patch                    +
> 0001-Logical-replication-support-for-initial-data-copy-v6.patch

I use three different machines (2 desktop, 1 server) to test logical 
replication, and all three have now at least once failed to correctly 
synchronise a pgbench session (amidst many succesful runs, of course)

I attach an output-file from the test-program, with the 2 logfiles 
(master+replica) of the failed run.  The outputfile 
(out_20170307_1613.txt) contains the output of 5 runs of 
pgbench_derail2.sh.  The first run failed, the next 4 were ok.

But that's probably not very useful; perhaps is pg_waldump more useful?  
 From what moment, or leading up to what moment, or period, is a 
pg_waldump(s) useful?  I can run it from the script, repeatedly, and 
only keep the dumped files when things go awry. Would that make sense?

Any other ideas welcome.


thanks,

Erik Rijkers




-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vladimir Sitnikov
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Statement-level rollback
Next
From: Vladimir Sitnikov
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Statement-level rollback