Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

On 04/06/2017 11:18 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
> <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>>:
>
> On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver
> <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
> <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
> <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>>>:
>
> On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
>
> Postgres version?
>
> 9.6.1
>
>
> 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?
>
> I have 2 slaves configured with async replication but they were down
> when I dropped the slots.
>
> So the 800 WALs number mean you have wal_keep_segments set
> to 800?
>
> No, wal_keep_segments is commented.
> 800 is the rough number of files I saw in xlog dir before
> dropping the
> slots.
>
>
> What are your settings for?:
>
> archive_mode
>
> archive_mode is off
>
>
> archive_command
>
> it's set as I tested it some months ago but now archive_mode is off
>
>
> Do you see anything in the Postgres log that might apply?
>
> No, nothing

I am not sure what is going on.

Are the number of WAL files still growing?

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