From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: replication_slots usability issue |
Date: | 2018-10-29 19:02:18 |
Message-ID: | 20181029190218.uejy5cvgzygwrguy@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Oct-29, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -Hackers,
>
>
> Working on 9.6 today (unsure if fixed in newer versions). Had an issue where
> the wal was 280G despite max_wal_size being 8G. Found out there were stale
> replication slots from a recent base backup. I went to drop the replication
> slots and found that since the wal_level was set to minimal vs replica or
> higher, I couldn't drop the replication slot. Clearly that makes sense for
> creating a replication slot but it seems like an artificial limitation for
> dropping them.
This sounds closely related to
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180508143725.mn3ivlyvgpul6ovr%40alvherre.pgsql
(commit a1f680d962ff) wherein we made it possible to drop a slot in
single-user mode.
Seems worth fixing. Send a patch?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | chenhj | 2018-10-29 19:04:20 | Connections hang indefinitely while taking a gin index's LWLock buffer_content lock |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-29 18:46:15 | Re: date_trunc() in a specific time zone |