| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mai Peng <maily(dot)peng(at)webedia-group(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | maxence(at)bothorel(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: Segfault logical replication PG 10.4 |
| Date: | 2018-07-14 11:15:46 |
| Message-ID: | 385363b3-205d-f167-5d26-9d260d34585c@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12.07.18 00:56, Mai Peng wrote:
> We discovered our pg_wal partition was full few days after setting our
> first logical publication on a PG 10.4 instance.
> Then, we can not synchronise our slave to the master, it triggers a
> segfault on the slave. We had to drop manually the subscription on slave
> and the slot on master.
> Then, we wanted to find the cause of this bug, stop connection between
> master and slave , after 30 minutes, the slave had a segfault and could
> not synchronise.
> Why does the slave can not synchronise without a complete creation
> subscription after dropping the slot?
Can you get a backtrace from the core dump produced by the segfault?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-14 12:13:45 | Re: missing toast table for pg_policy |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-07-14 11:14:21 | Re: CVE-2017-7484-induced bugs, or, btree cmp functions are not leakproof? |