Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-07 15:57 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>:

> 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?

No, once I restarted the server, they got deleted. The problem was only
before restarting the server.
Regards
Pupillo

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