Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it. - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1Jn0d9d+y6j0Qd1CzsRedU_2A4c2tL3dCxn1eebg6buLA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.  (hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com>)
Responses Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.
List pgsql-bugs
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 7:03 PM hubert depesz lubaczewski
<depesz@depesz.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 06:30:57PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > There is something weird happening:
> > What exactly weird you are seeing in this? To me, it appears as if the
> > system due to some reason ignores an existing slot that has
> > restart_lsn as 1039D/83825958.
>
> The weird part for me is that it is trying to remove wal files older
> than the same "x" many times.
>

I think that is okay because as per checkpointer's computation it
decides not to remove/replace any new WAL files. At this stage, I am
not getting any idea except for getting the value of
XLogGetReplicationSlotMinimumLSN() in one of the LOG prints. If you
can't add all the LOGs, I shared in the last patch, can you try to get
the value of XLogGetReplicationSlotMinimumLSN() by appending to the
existing LOG "attempting to remove WAL segments older than log file
.."?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #17687: Session timezone change does not play well with prepared statements
Next
From: hubert depesz lubaczewski
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.