Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.

From: hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs mailing list <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.
Date: 2022-10-19 10:20:13
Message-ID: Y0/PXTsb5XNH0fXG@depesz.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 04:57:52PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 2:43 PM hubert depesz lubaczewski
> <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 10:35:17AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > Wal file has been removed. Please note that the file was, as shown earlier, still within "restart_lsn" as visibile on pg12/bionic.
> > > This is quite strange and I am not able to see the reason why this can
> > > happen. The only way to debug this problem that comes to mind is to
> > > add more LOGS around the code that removes the WAL files. For example,
> > > we can try to print the value of minimumslotLSN (keep) and logSegNo in
> > > KeepLogSeg().
> >
> > That would require changing pg sources, I think, recompiling, and
> > retrying?
> >
>
> Yes. BTW, are you on the latest release of pg12, if not then you can
> once check the release notes to see if there is any related bug fix in
> the later releases?
>
> Is this problem reproducible? If so, can you find out why there are
> multiple time connection issues between walsender and walreceiver?

I can try to redo it, but before I do - anything I could do to either
side of replication to increase our chances at figuring out the
underlying problem? I can't restart pg12, though.

Best regards,

depesz

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2022-10-19 10:44:28 Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.
Previous Message PG Bug reporting form 2022-10-19 10:16:42 BUG #17651: Possible optimization for sort on not nullable field (indexed)