Re: wal recycling problem

From: Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net>
To: Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: wal recycling problem
Date: 2023-09-28 17:59:08
Message-ID: ZRW-7CMzr8HW72ry@elch.exwg.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

## Fabrice Chapuis (fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com):

> We have a cluster of 2 members (1 primary and 1 standby) with Postgres
> version 14.9 and 2 barman server, slots are only configured for barman,
> barman is version 3.7.

The obvious question here is: can both of those barmans keep up with
your database, or are you seeing WAL retention due to exactly these
replication slots? (Check pg_replication_slots).

Regards,
Christoph

--
Spare Space

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2023-09-28 18:29:21 Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade failed with error - ERROR: column "a" in child table must be marked NOT NULL
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2023-09-28 17:52:33 Re: Invalidate the subscription worker in cases where a user loses their superuser status