Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

Hi,
2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <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>>:
>>
>> 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 dropped those slots but over time, the system kept on adding
>> new WALs
>> without reusing them or deleting them.
>> Only after shutdown and restart the system deleted those WAL
>> files.
>> Is that ok?
>> regards
>> Pupillo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adrian Klaver
>> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Pupillo
>>
>> Thanks
Pupillo