Re: WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep.

From: Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep.
Date: 2016-11-18 09:06:55
Message-ID: CAMsr+YGkmJ2aweanT4JF9_i_xS_bGTZkdKW-_=2A88yEGansPA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 18 Nov. 2016 13:14, "Kyotaro HORIGUCHI" <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync
> replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is
> contrary to expectation on synchronous replication.

Isn't this prevented by using a physical replication slot?

You hint that you looked at slots but they didn't meet your needs in some
way. I'm not sure I understood the last part.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Emre Hasegeli 2016-11-18 09:33:08 Re: Contains and is contained by operators of inet datatypes
Previous Message Dave Page 2016-11-18 09:00:07 Re: Mail thread references in commits