From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |
Date: | 2017-03-07 02:01:53 |
Message-ID: | CAMsr+YFa2TvmM+ZNWME3W9jOgAxOyu7OByQV8tsL1XbUM=Fwcw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28 February 2017 at 12:27, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> This patch adds a GUC to put a limit to the number of segments
>> that replication slots can keep. Hitting the limit during
>> checkpoint shows a warining and the segments older than the limit
>> are removed.
>>
>>> WARNING: restart LSN of replication slots is ignored by checkpoint
>>> DETAIL: Some replication slots lose required WAL segnents to continue.
>>
>
> However this is dangerous as logical replication slot does not consider
> it error when too old LSN is requested so we'd continue replication,
> hiding data loss.
That skipping only happens if you request a startpoint older than
confirmed_flush_lsn . It doesn't apply to this situation.
The client cannot control where we start decoding, it's always
restart_lsn, and if we can't find a needed WAL segment we'll ERROR. So
this is safe, though the error will be something about being unable to
find a wal segment that users might not directly associate with having
set this option. It won't say "slot disabled because needed WAL has
been discarded due to [setting]" or anything.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-03-07 02:09:55 | Re: wait events for disk I/O |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-03-07 01:56:31 | Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode |