| From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication |
| Date: | 2019-08-21 11:45:27 |
| Message-ID: | 3caf7506a19403334851f4c8ec3f655f111a507c.camel@oopsware.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Mittwoch, den 21.08.2019, 13:26 +0300 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
> Yes, it is possible to have physical replica withotu replication
> slot.
> But it is not safe, because there is always a risk that lag between
> master and replica becomes larger than size of WAL kept at master.
Sure, but that doesn't mean use cases for this aren't real.
> Also I can't believe that DBA which explicitly sets wal_level is set
> to
> logical will use streaming replication without associated replication
> slot.
Well, i know people doing exactly this, for various reasons (short
living replicas, logical replicated table sets for reports, ...). The
fact that they can have loosely coupled replicas with either physical
or logical replication is a feature they'd really miss....
Bernd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2019-08-21 12:32:57 | Re: "ago" times on buildfarm status page |
| Previous Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2019-08-21 11:07:51 | Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication |