Re: Reviving lost replication slots
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reviving lost replication slots |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LMq3HjX5tRJhoOM9FLVCk8PNrpASuxzhLBtc-x=Ub8CQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reviving lost replication slots (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reviving lost replication slots
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 3:00 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 2:02 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't think walsenders fetching segment from archive is totally > > stupid. With that feature, we can use fast and expensive but small > > storage for pg_wal, while avoiding replciation from dying even in > > emergency. > > It seems like a useful feature to have at least as an option and it > saves a lot of work - failovers, expensive rebuilds of > standbys/subscribers, manual interventions etc. > > If you're saying that even the walsedners serving logical replication > subscribers would go fetch from the archive location for the removed > WAL files, it mandates enabling archiving on the subscribers. > Why archiving on subscribers is required? Won't it be sufficient if that is enabled on the publisher where we have walsender? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: