Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

On 04/06/2017 11:18 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
> <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>>:
>
>     On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver
>         <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
>         <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
>         <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.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?


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com