Re: Replication slots and footguns

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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"