Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t2tGg-008F0q-0s for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:20:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t2tGe-007zy9-7K for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:20:20 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t2tGd-007zy1-V2 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:20:20 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t2tGb-002ET0-1K for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:20:19 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 49LEKCvd1551044; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:20:12 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: andrew.lozovsky@gmail.com cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #18666: Standby cluster does not start after building from Primary cluster. In-reply-to: <18666-ac3af3f657ead7e2@postgresql.org> References: <18666-ac3af3f657ead7e2@postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to PG Bug reporting form message dated "Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:33:00 -0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1551042.1729520412.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:20:12 -0400 Message-ID: <1551043.1729520412@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk PG Bug reporting form writes: > Standby cluster does not start after building from Primary cluster. I think your archiving setup is broken: > archive_command = 'cp %p /dev/null' > ... > restore_command = 'cp /opt/archivelog/%f %p' BTW, "cp" is widely regarded as not being safe enough for production archiving, because it doesn't fsync. But this archive_command isn't even trying. So it's not surprising if there's not enough WAL to recover from. regards, tom lane