Re: Questions on logical replication

Reading this:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/warm-standby.html#STREAMING-REPLICATION-SLOTS

" Replication slots provide an automated way to ensure that the primary
does not remove WAL segments until they have been received by all standbys,
and that the primary does not remove rows which could cause a recovery
conflict
<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/hot-standby.html#HOT-STANDBY-CONFLICT>
even when the standby is disconnected. "

Am I to understand that a subscription is considered that same as a
standby, in this context?

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 12:55 AM Koen De Groote <kdg(dot)dev(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I recently read the entire documentation on logical replication, but am
> left with a question on the buildup of WAL
>
> On this page:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/logical-replication-subscription.html#LOGICAL-REPLICATION-SUBSCRIPTION-SLOT
>
> It is written: " When dropping a subscription, the remote host is not
> reachable. In that case, disassociate the slot from the subscription using ALTER
> SUBSCRIPTION before attempting to drop the subscription. If the remote
> database instance no longer exists, no further action is then necessary.
> If, however, the remote database instance is just unreachable, the
> replication slot (and any still remaining table synchronization slots)
> should then be dropped manually; otherwise it/they would continue to
> reserve WAL and might eventually cause the disk to fill up. Such cases
> should be carefully investigated."
>
>
> Assuming a situation where I add tables 1 at a time to the publisher, and
> refresh the subscription every time.
>
> What happens if I shut down the subscriber database for a while? The
> subscription isn't dropped, so am I reading it right that the disk on the
> publisher will slowly be filling up with WAL? Isn't that always the case if
> wall is enabled?
>
> This "cause disk to fill up" warning is quite concerning, and I'd like to
> understand what could cause it and how likely it is? I thought logical
> replication uses WAL by default, so doesn't that mean there has to be a log
> of changes kept anyhow? Even if the WAL isn't written to disk by an
> "archive_command"?
>
> Regards,
> Koen De Groote
>