| From: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication |
| Date: | 2019-08-21 10:26:04 |
| Message-ID: | 73920efc-ea3e-a4fc-3c4e-bc1ba6f5789b@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21.08.2019 12:34, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.08.2019, 12:20 +0300 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
>> I wonder if we can check that
>>
>> 1. wal_revel is "logical"
>> 2. There are no physical replication slots
>> 3. WAL archiving is disables
> Not sure i get that correctly, i can still have a physical standby
> without replication slots connected to such an instance. How would your
> idea handle this situation?
Yes, it is possible to have physical replica withotu replication slot.
But it is not safe, because there is always a risk that lag between
master and replica becomes larger than size of WAL kept at master.
Also I can't believe that DBA which explicitly sets wal_level is set to
logical will use streaming replication without associated replication slot.
And certainly it is possible to add GUC which controls such optimization.
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-08-21 10:37:50 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-08-21 10:06:21 | Re: Remove one last occurrence of "replication slave" in comments |