From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: replication_slots usability issue |
Date: | 2018-10-29 19:13:04 |
Message-ID: | 20181029191304.lbsmhshkyymhw22w@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-10-29 16:02:18 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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?
I don't think this quite is the problem. ISTM the issue is rather that
StartupReplicationSlots() *needs* to check whether wal_level > minimal,
and doesn't. So you can create a slot, shutdown, change wal_level,
startup. A slot exists but won't work correctly.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-29 19:48:37 | Re: Should pg 11 use a lot more memory building an spgist index? |
Previous Message | chenhj | 2018-10-29 19:04:20 | Connections hang indefinitely while taking a gin index's LWLock buffer_content lock |