Re: Reviving lost replication slots

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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