Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WR4sW-0002tt-Sf for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:13:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WR4sW-0003Xt-DS for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:13:16 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WR4sV-0003Xn-Kt for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:13:15 +0000 Received: from cerberus.pinpointresearch.com ([66.7.238.130] helo=polaris.pinpointresearch.com) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WR4sR-0002Zx-HG for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:13:15 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.179] (betelgeuse.pinpointresearch.com [192.168.1.179]) by polaris.pinpointresearch.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740ABE00EC82; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <532C8F44.4030301@pinpointresearch.com> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:08 -0700 From: Steve Crawford User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Chatha, Karan (CMG-Atlanta)" , "pgsql-admin@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Replication Lag References: <378D940FF9AE0145BA853EE92442D64334660540@CMGATLPMS2003.cmg.int> In-Reply-To: <378D940FF9AE0145BA853EE92442D64334660540@CMGATLPMS2003.cmg.int> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050300050008000703080602" X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-admin Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050300050008000703080602 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/20/2014 07:42 PM, Chatha, Karan (CMG-Atlanta) wrote: > > We are having replication lag issues in our production environment. > We are on postgres 9.015. > Er. 9.0.15? > > We have one master and 8 slaves. We don't see any loads or io on the > slaves. All we see is replication lag which we measure in megs. We > can reproduce > > this by doing transactions on the master and we see that transactions > are not coming over to slave. > Are you seeing a *lag* in replication or no replication at all? > > Is there any way we are hitting a bug? > Possibly but I'm going to guess that the most likely location of the bug is somewhere in your configuration. You need to provide more information. This page is a good guide: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems In particular, I'd like to know for starters: 0. What form of replication are you using? Bucardo? Slony? Pgpool? Londiste? Mammoth? Hot-standby? Warm-standby? ... 1. Did it ever work? 2. If so, what changed? (configuration, upgrades, network, ???) 3. Are all machines on the same version? 4. Have you done any upgrades? If so, did you follow all the special notes regarding each upgrade? Occasionally minor upgrades require steps beyond simply replacing the binary and at times those have involved replication issues. 5. Anything of interest in the logs on the master or any of the standbys? Be sure sufficient logging is enabled. Cheers, Steve --------------050300050008000703080602 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 03/20/2014 07:42 PM, Chatha, Karan (CMG-Atlanta) wrote:

We are having replication lag issues in our production environment.  We are on postgres 9.015.

Er. 9.0.15?

 

We have one master and 8 slaves.  We don’t see any loads or io on the slaves.  All we see is replication lag which we measure in megs.  We can reproduce

this by doing transactions on the master and we see that transactions are not coming over to slave.

Are you seeing a *lag* in replication or no replication at all?

 

Is there any way we are hitting a bug?


Possibly but I'm going to guess that the most likely location of the bug is somewhere in your configuration. You need to provide more information. This page is a good guide: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems

In particular, I'd like to know for starters:

0. What form of replication are you using? Bucardo? Slony? Pgpool? Londiste? Mammoth? Hot-standby? Warm-standby? ...

1. Did it ever work?

2. If so, what changed? (configuration, upgrades, network, ???)

3. Are all machines on the same version?

4. Have you done any upgrades? If so, did you follow all the special notes regarding each upgrade? Occasionally minor upgrades require steps beyond simply replacing the binary and at times those have involved replication issues.

5. Anything of interest in the logs on the master or any of the standbys? Be sure sufficient logging is enabled.

Cheers,
Steve

--------------050300050008000703080602--