Re: logical replication deranged sender

From: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: logical replication deranged sender
Date: 2017-05-09 16:18:22
Message-ID: ab32081e-f951-19b1-111f-3794471fc71d@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/05/17 13:47, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 08/05/17 01:17, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> After dropping a subscription, it says it succeeded and that it dropped
>> the slot on the publisher.
>>
>> But the publisher still has the slot, and a full-tilt process described
>> by ps as
>>
>> postgres: wal sender process jjanes [local] idle in transaction
>>
>> Strace shows that this process is doing nothing but opening, reading,
>> lseek, and closing from pg_wal, and calling sbrk. It never sends anything.
>>
>> This is not how it should work, correct?
>>
>
> No, and I don't see how this happens though, we only report success if
> the publisher side said that DROP_REPLICATION_SLOT succeeded. So far I
> don't see anything in source that would explain this. I will need to
> reproduce it first to see what's happening (wasn't able to do that yet,
> but it might just need more time since you say it does no happen always).
>

Hm I wonder are there any workers left on subscriber when this happens?

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2017-05-09 16:39:55 Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2017-05-09 16:15:14 Re: proposal psql \gdesc