Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication

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 09:34:34
Message-ID: 81f0018e736f0d792604b8183f7bd3cb4674e77e.camel@oopsware.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Am Mittwoch, den 21.08.2019, 12:20 +0300 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
> I wonder if we can check that
>
> 1. wal_revel is "logical"
> 2. There are no physical replication slots
> 3. WAL archiving is disables

Not sure i get that correctly, i can still have a physical standby
without replication slots connected to such an instance. How would your
idea handle this situation?

Bernd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-08-21 10:06:21 Re: Remove one last occurrence of "replication slave" in comments
Previous Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2019-08-21 09:20:18 Optimization of vacuum for logical replication