MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5537EFEF.6060808@iki.fi>
References: <548AF1CB.80702@vmware.com>
 <689EB259-44C2-4820-B901-4F6B1C55A1E4@simply.name>
 <549083D6.1000301@vmware.com>
 <CAHGQGwGJzp-QS7BODiv1uc291gAKtjzzCPb_nzUTxYKJhLsUCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <54949108.3030109@vmware.com>
 <CAEyp7J9Hy8Q__FbGeR5skjk7d0dvLC+KLXB3JUuWrXXdJ5O+Wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <552FA38F.9060005@iki.fi>
 <CAB7nPqQE179yogtg+nKvdwt9KROxTyt-EjumKOMbuXQtea5r3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5535FE71.1010905@iki.fi>
 <CAB7nPqS=V=LF-JZsv9eGF84joQ3jxugt4gkOK6kD1CiB98_vWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <55362CAD.2000207@iki.fi>
 <CA+TgmoZhcbyDBr8UdGu=y5kmnVcSwcnaBqqV=UnP+oCGiNQGeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <55373D17.5050706@iki.fi>
 <CA+Tgmoa_Fwi+q4EKu+SYszowBN5k5LYDY4VkFOtmzkez2PdYLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5537EFEF.6060808@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:21:06 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+TgmoY5MJ5sDxToQZ28Jku8BFQ5T8=LMSduCZB-0zKThOx_WQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Streaming replication and WAL archive interactions
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: hlinnaka <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
 Venkata Balaji N <nag1010@gmail.com>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
 Borodin Vladimir <root@simply.name>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 04/22/2015 09:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that it's a bit complicated to set up that scenario today. Archiving
>>> is
>>> never enabled in recovery mode, so you'll need to use a custom cron job
>>> or
>>> something to maintain the archive that C uses. The files will not
>>> automatically flow from B to the second archive. With the patch we're
>>> discussing, however, it would be easy: just set archive_mode='always' in
>>> B.
>>
>>
>> Hmm, I see.  But if C never replays the last, partial segment from the
>> old timeline, how does it follow the timeline switch?
>
> At timeline switch, we copy the old segment to the new timeline, and start
> writing where we left off. So the WAL from the old timeline is found in the
> segment nominally belonging to the new timeline.

Check.

> For example, imagine that perform point-in-time recovery to WAL position
> 0/1237E568, on timeline 1. That falls within segment
> 000000010000000000000012. Then we end recovery, and switch to timeline 2.
> After the switch, and some more WAL-logged actions, we'll have these files
> in pg_xlog:
>
> 000000010000000000000011
> 000000010000000000000012
> 000000020000000000000012
> 000000020000000000000013
> 000000020000000000000014

Is the 000000010000000000000012 file a "partial" segment of the sort
you're proposing to no longer achive?

> Note that there are two segments ending in "12". They both have the same
> point up to offset 0x37E568, corresponding to the switch point 0/1237E568.
> After that, the contents diverge: the segment on the new timeline contains a
> checkpoint/end-of-recovery record at that point, followed by new WAL
> belonging to the new timeline.

Check.

> Recovery knows about that, so that if you set recovery target to timeline 2,
> and it needs the WAL at the beginning of segment 12 (still belonging to
> timeline 1), it will try to restoring both "000000010000000000000012" and
> "000000020000000000000012".

What if you set the recovery target to timeline 3?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


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