| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling) |
| Date: | 2017-05-02 16:00:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYvobB=85_K7JOdECjzzWS1Rnem-vTkp42r_8gFP0gitQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> So the only way to fulfill the requirement you stated is to just not try
>> to drop the slot, ever, on DROP SUBSCRIPTION. That makes the default
>> behavior leave resources on upstream that will eventually cause that
>> server to stop unless user notices before. I think we better invent
>> something that limits how much inactive slots can hold back WAL and
>> catalog_xmin in this release as well then.
>
> I don't understand why isn't the default behavior to unconditionally
> drop the slot. Why do we ever want the slot to be kept?
What if the remote server doesn't exist any more?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2017-05-02 16:01:14 | Re: CTE inlining |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-05-02 15:49:59 | Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling) |