Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

From: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
To: Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots
Date: 2017-04-04 23:55:02
Message-ID: 249b4b3b-d364-a8c6-187d-3778d1dca920@aklaver.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:

Postgres version?

> Hi,
> I had two replication slots on my primary. Slaves off and (around 800)
> WALs kept as expected.

Slaves off means?:

You replication set up from the master to the slaves(how many?).
Then you disconnected the slaves how?

So the 800 WALs number mean you have wal_keep_segments set to 800?

> I dropped those slots but over time, the system kept on adding new WALs
> without reusing them or deleting them.
> Only after shutdown and restart the system deleted those WAL files.
> Is that ok?
> regards
> Pupillo
>
>

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruno Wolff III 2017-04-05 02:58:09 Is there a point to having both a normal gist index and an exclude index?
Previous Message Armand Pirvu (home) 2017-04-04 22:13:39 Re: getting column names