Re: Need Force flag for pg_drop_replication_slot()

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Need Force flag for pg_drop_replication_slot()
Date: 2015-05-29 19:27:18
Message-ID: 20150529192718.GF26863@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-05-29 14:39:02 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> > How is this measurably worse than trying to truncate a log table that
> > has grown too large? That's often harder to fight actually, because
> > there's dozens of other processes that might be using the relation? In
> > one case you don't have wait ordering, but only one locker, in the other
> > case you have multiple waiters, and to benefit from wait ordering you
> > need multiple sessions.
>
> Because we don't fall over if we can't extend a relation.
>
> We do fall over if we can't write WAL.

As nearly everybody uses the same filesystem for pg_xlog and the actual
databases, that distinction isn't worth much. You'll still fail when
writing the WAL, even if the disk space has been used by a relation
instead of WAL.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-05-29 19:27:41 Re: Need Force flag for pg_drop_replication_slot()
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2015-05-29 19:21:05 Re: Need Force flag for pg_drop_replication_slot()