| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_replslotdata - a tool for displaying replication slot information |
| Date: | 2021-12-01 22:52:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20211201225243.hu5ygzyaxr546v52@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-11-30 18:43:23 +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 11/30/21, 6:14 AM, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 23.11.21 06:09, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> >> The replication slots data is stored in binary format on the disk under
> >> the pg_replslot/<<slot_name>> directory which isn't human readable. If
> >> the server is crashed/down (for whatever reasons) and unable to come up,
> >> currently there's no way for the user/admin/developer to know what were
> >> all the replication slots available at the time of server crash/down to
> >> figure out what's the restart lsn, xid, two phase info or types of slots
> >> etc.
> >
> > What do you need that for? You can't do anything with a replication
> > slot while the server is down.
Yes, I don't think there's sufficient need for this.
> I don't have any other compelling use- cases at the moment, but I will say
> that it is typically nice from an administrative standpoint to be able to
> inspect things like this without logging into a running server.
Weighed against the cost of maintaining (including documentation) a separate
tool this doesn't seem sufficient reason.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-12-01 22:56:32 | Re: O(n) tasks cause lengthy startups and checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-12-01 22:50:45 | Re: Deprecating the term "super-exclusive lock" |