Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.
От | hubert depesz lubaczewski |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Y3JyHKOoDTbImPTA@depesz.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it. (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 09:52:05PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > 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 > .."? If I'll get *any* patch approved, and restart of client db, then it doesn't matter how many LOGs there will be :) Will get back to you as soon as I will have more info. Best regards, depesz
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: