From: | Wim Bertels <wim(dot)bertels(at)ucll(dot)be> |
---|---|
To: | Keith Fiske <keith(dot)fiske(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: viewing connectioninfo used by subscriber on the publication server when inactive |
Date: | 2020-05-14 14:22:27 |
Message-ID: | 95bb0c6c21a2a96a526a5ce01f16e62ea4f073f5.camel@ucll.be |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Keith Fiske schreef op do 14-05-2020 om 10:08 [-0400]:
> It doesn't matter how small the dataset change is. The same WAL
> stream is used for both logical and physical replication so it has to
> keep all WAL files until all subscribers for that publication have
> confirmed they have received them. If even a single subscriber goes
> offline, all WAL will be kept until that subscriber reconnects.
That is interesting, i assume this the WAL for the whole cluster, as
logical decoding is then used on this WAL for the logical replication,
do you have an estimate of order of magnitude for the all WAL files?
So far this seems ok over here (with one subscriber inactive for 2
days):
# du -ch pg_logical/ pg_wal/ pg_replslot/
912K pg_logical/snapshots
4,0K pg_logical/mappings
924K pg_logical/
4,0K pg_wal/archive_status
81M pg_wal/
8,0K pg_replslot/db2_sub
8,0K pg_replslot/db2_sub1
8,0K pg_replslot/db2_sub2
28K pg_replslot/
81M totaal
this after two days of replication setup.
assuming that students will be offline for at most 2 or 3 days,
this seems ok?
--
mvg,
Wim
--
Tell the truth or trump--but get the trick.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Keith Fiske | 2020-05-14 14:34:37 | Re: viewing connectioninfo used by subscriber on the publication server when inactive |
Previous Message | Keith Fiske | 2020-05-14 14:08:35 | Re: viewing connectioninfo used by subscriber on the publication server when inactive |