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 968fc591-51d3-fd74-8a55-40aa770baa3a@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  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 21.08.2019 14:45, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.08.2019, 13:26 +0300 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
>> 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.
> Sure, but that doesn't mean use cases for this aren't real.
>
>> Also I can't believe that  DBA which explicitly sets wal_level is set
>> to
>> logical will use streaming replication without associated replication
>> slot.
> Well, i know people doing exactly this, for various reasons (short
> living replicas, logical replicated table sets for reports, ...). The
> fact that they can have loosely coupled replicas with either physical
> or logical replication is a feature they'd really miss....
>
>     Bernd
>

Ok, you convinced me that there are cases when people want to combine 
logical replication with streaming replication without slot.
But is it acceptable to have GUC variable (disabled by default) which 
allows to use this optimizations?

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




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: "ago" times on buildfarm status page
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: "ago" times on buildfarm status page