Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1Jn0d9d+y6j0Qd1CzsRedU_2A4c2tL3dCxn1eebg6buLA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it. (hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 7:03 PM hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 06:30:57PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > There is something weird happening: > > What exactly weird you are seeing in this? To me, it appears as if the > > system due to some reason ignores an existing slot that has > > restart_lsn as 1039D/83825958. > > The weird part for me is that it is trying to remove wal files older > than the same "x" many times. > I think that is okay because as per checkpointer's computation it decides not to remove/replace any new WAL files. At this stage, I am not getting any idea except for getting the value of XLogGetReplicationSlotMinimumLSN() in one of the LOG prints. If you can't add all the LOGs, I shared in the last patch, can you try to get the value of XLogGetReplicationSlotMinimumLSN() by appending to the existing LOG "attempting to remove WAL segments older than log file .."? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: