Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: 2018-07-03T17:37:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2018-07-03 13:23:50 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-03, Andres Freund wrote:
> 
> > I'm not clear to why this is a problem? Seems like either behaviour can
> > be argued for. I don't really have an opinion either way. I'd just
> > remove the item from the open items list, I don't think we need to hold
> > up the release for it?
> 
> After reading this more carefully, isn't the problem that as soon as you
> get a slot into the 0/1 restart_lsn state, WAL recycling/deletion no
> longer happens?  That does sound like a bad thing to me.

Fair enough, but that's what a plain slot allows you as well, pretty
fundamentally, no? The precise point at which recycling will be blocked
will differer, sure.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


Commits

  1. Block replication slot advance for these not yet reserving WAL