Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Konstantin Knizhnik
Subject Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication
Date
Msg-id 73920efc-ea3e-a4fc-3c4e-bc1ba6f5789b@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
Responses Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication  (Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>)
Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 21.08.2019 12:34, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.08.2019, 12:20 +0300 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
>> I wonder if we can check that
>>
>> 1. wal_revel is "logical"
>> 2. There are no physical replication slots
>> 3. WAL archiving is disables
> Not sure i get that correctly, i can still have a physical standby
> without replication slots connected to such an instance. How would your
> idea handle this situation?

Yes, it is possible to have physical replica withotu replication slot.
But it is not safe, because there is always a risk that lag between 
master and replica becomes larger than size of WAL kept at master.
Also I can't believe that  DBA which explicitly sets wal_level is set to 
logical will use streaming replication without associated replication slot.

And certainly it is possible to add GUC which controls such optimization.

-- 

Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove one last occurrence of "replication slave" in comments
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs