Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-08 Thread Tom DalPozzo
2017-04-07 15:57 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver : > On 04/06/2017 11:18 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> 2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver > >: >> >> On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: >>

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-07 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 04/06/2017 11:18 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: Hi, 2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver >: On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: Hi, 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-07 Thread Chris Mair
Postgres version? 9.6.1 Have you considered upgrading to 9.6.2? There were some fixes, including WAL related: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6-2.html Not exactly regarding what you see, though... Bye, Chris. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-07 Thread Tom DalPozzo
Hi, 2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver : > On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver > >: >> >> On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-06 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: Hi, 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver >: On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: Postgres version? 9.6.1 Hi, I had two replication slots on my primary.

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-05 Thread Tom DalPozzo
Hi, 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver : > On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: > > Postgres version? > 9.6.1 > > Hi, >> I had two replication slots on my primary. Slaves off and (around 800) >> WALs kept as expected. >> > > Slaves off means?: > > You

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-04 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: Postgres version? Hi, I had two replication slots on my primary. Slaves off and (around 800) WALs kept as expected. Slaves off means?: You replication set up from the master to the slaves(how many?). Then you disconnected the slaves how? So the

[GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-04 Thread Tom DalPozzo
Hi, I had two replication slots on my primary. Slaves off and (around 800) WALs kept as expected. I dropped those slots but over time, the system kept on adding new WALs without reusing them or deleting them. Only after shutdown and restart the system deleted those WAL files. Is that ok? regards