From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replication slots and footguns |
Date: | 2014-03-12 19:18:04 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ7DKH4jyRetvwoq_NbbjEfAeszeNkF7Z9cU6dA3sRtzg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2014-03-12 12:00:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I was just reading Michael's explanation of replication slots
>> (http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-9-4-feature-highlight-replication-slots/)
>> and realized there was something which had completely escaped me in the
>> pre-commit discussion:
>>
>> select pg_drop_replication_slot('slot_1');
>> ERROR: 55006: replication slot "slot_1" is already active
>> LOCATION: ReplicationSlotAcquire, slot.c:339
>>
>> What defines an "active" slot?
>
> One with a connected walsender.
>
>> It seems like there's no way for a DBA to drop slots from the master if
>> it's rapidly running out of disk WAL space without doing a restart, and
>> there's no way to drop the slot for a replica which the DBA knows is
>> permanently offline but was connected earlier. Am I missing something?
>
> It's sufficient to terminate the walsender and then drop the slot. That
> seems ok for now?
Urgh. That error message looks susceptible to improvement. How about:
replication slot "%s" cannot be dropped because it is currently in use
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-03-12 19:23:01 | Re: Replication slots and footguns |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-03-12 19:05:38 | Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure" |