keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

t.dalpozzo@gmail.com
Hi,
I had two replication slots on my primary. Slaves off and (around 800) WALs kept as expected.
I dropped those slots but over time, the system kept on adding new WALs without reusing them or deleting them.
Only after shutdown and restart the system deleted those WAL files.
Is that ok?
regards
Pupillo


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

Adrian Klaver-4
On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:

Postgres version?

> 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?

So the 800 WALs number mean you have wal_keep_segments set to 800?



> I dropped those slots but over time, the system kept on adding new WALs
> without reusing them or deleting them.
> Only after shutdown and restart the system deleted those WAL files.
> Is that ok?
> regards
> Pupillo
>
>


--
Adrian Klaver
[hidden email]


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ([hidden email])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

t.dalpozzo@gmail.com
Hi,

2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <[hidden email]>:
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.




I dropped those slots but over time, the system kept on adding new WALs
without reusing them or deleting them.
Only after shutdown and restart the system deleted those WAL files.
Is that ok?
regards
Pupillo




--
Adrian Klaver
[hidden email]

Regards
Pupillo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

Adrian Klaver-4
On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>     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_command

Do you see anything in the Postgres log that might apply?

>
>
>
>
>         I dropped those slots but over time, the system kept on adding
>         new WALs
>         without reusing them or deleting them.
>         Only after shutdown and restart the system deleted those WAL files.
>         Is that ok?
>         regards
>         Pupillo
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Adrian Klaver
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
> Regards
> Pupillo
>


--
Adrian Klaver
[hidden email]


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ([hidden email])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

t.dalpozzo@gmail.com

Hi,
2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <[hidden email]>:
On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
Hi,

2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <[hidden email]
<mailto:[hidden email]>>:

    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 dropped those slots but over time, the system kept on adding
        new WALs
        without reusing them or deleting them.
        Only after shutdown and restart the system deleted those WAL files.
        Is that ok?
        regards
        Pupillo




    --
    Adrian Klaver
    [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>


Regards
Pupillo

Thanks
Pupillo
 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

Christian Mair
>             Postgres version?
>
>         9.6.1

Have you considered upgrading to 9.6.2?
There were some fixes, including WAL related:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6-2.html

Not exactly regarding what you see, though...

Bye,
Chris.





--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ([hidden email])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

Adrian Klaver-4
In reply to this post by t.dalpozzo@gmail.com
On 04/06/2017 11:18 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:

>
> Hi,
> 2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>     On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>>:
>
>             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
[hidden email]


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ([hidden email])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

t.dalpozzo@gmail.com


2017-04-07 15:57 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <[hidden email]>:
On 04/06/2017 11:18 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:

Hi,
2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <[hidden email]
<mailto:[hidden email]>>:

    On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:

        Hi,

        2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
        <mailto:[hidden email]
        <mailto:[hidden email]>>>:

            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?
No, once I restarted the server, they got deleted. The problem was only before restarting the server.
Regards
Pupillo 



--
Adrian Klaver
[hidden email]