Re: replication_slots usability issue

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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