Re: [HACKERS] logical replication deranged sender - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Petr Jelinek
Subject Re: [HACKERS] logical replication deranged sender
Date
Msg-id ab32081e-f951-19b1-111f-3794471fc71d@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] logical replication deranged sender  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] logical replication deranged sender  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 08/05/17 13:47, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 08/05/17 01:17, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> After dropping a subscription, it says it succeeded and that it dropped
>> the slot on the publisher.
>>
>> But the publisher still has the slot, and a full-tilt process described
>> by ps as 
>>
>> postgres: wal sender process jjanes [local] idle in transaction
>>
>> Strace shows that this process is doing nothing but opening, reading,
>> lseek, and closing from pg_wal, and calling sbrk.  It never sends anything.
>>
>> This is not how it should work, correct?
>>
> 
> No, and I don't see how this happens though, we only report success if
> the publisher side said that DROP_REPLICATION_SLOT succeeded. So far I
> don't see anything in source that would explain this. I will need to
> reproduce it first to see what's happening (wasn't able to do that yet,
> but it might just need more time since you say it does no happen always).
> 

Hm I wonder are there any workers left on subscriber when this happens?

--  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal psql \gdesc
Next
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() becomepg_current_wal_lsn()