From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, sirichamarthi22(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Reviving lost replication slots |
Date: | 2022-11-09 10:23:23 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LMq3HjX5tRJhoOM9FLVCk8PNrpASuxzhLBtc-x=Ub8CQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 3:00 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 2:02 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think walsenders fetching segment from archive is totally
> > stupid. With that feature, we can use fast and expensive but small
> > storage for pg_wal, while avoiding replciation from dying even in
> > emergency.
>
> It seems like a useful feature to have at least as an option and it
> saves a lot of work - failovers, expensive rebuilds of
> standbys/subscribers, manual interventions etc.
>
> If you're saying that even the walsedners serving logical replication
> subscribers would go fetch from the archive location for the removed
> WAL files, it mandates enabling archiving on the subscribers.
>
Why archiving on subscribers is required? Won't it be sufficient if
that is enabled on the publisher where we have walsender?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-11-09 10:24:16 | Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly |
Previous Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2022-11-09 10:01:14 | Re: BUG #17434: CREATE/DROP DATABASE can be executed in the same transaction with other commands |