> - replication slot (you said that is not it)
The replication slot is the same on master:
postgres=# select * from pg_replication_slots ;
slot_name | plugin | slot_type | datoid | database | temporary |
active | active_pid | xmin | catalog_xmin | restart_lsn |
confirmed_flush_lsn
------------------+--------+-----------+--------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+------+--------------+--------------+---------------------
stanby_slot | | physical | | | f | t
| 94341 | | | 145/F6ECC190 |
(1 row)
$ grep slot ${PGDATA}/recovery.done
primary_slot_name = 'stanby_slot'
and on slave:
postgres=# select * from pg_replication_slots ;
slot_name | plugin | slot_type | datoid | database | temporary |
active | active_pid | xmin | catalog_xmin | restart_lsn |
confirmed_flush_lsn
------------------+--------+-----------+--------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+------+--------------+--------------+---------------------
stanby_slot | | physical | | | f | f
| | | | 13E/981E2DD0 |
(1 row)
$ grep slot ${PGDATA}/recovery.conf
primary_slot_name = 'stanby_slot'
postgres=# show wal_keep_segments;
wal_keep_segments
-------------------
32
(1 row)
but on slave:
$ ls pg_wal/ | wc -l
1892
вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 15:53, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at>:
> On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 15:31 +0200, Andrew Anderson wrote:
> > вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 14:21, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at>:
> > > On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 09:49 +0200, Andrew Anderson wrote:
> > > > 2021-03-16 09:44:03.997 EET [97581] [] [] [] []DEBUG: attempting to
> remove WAL segments older than log file 000000000000013E00000097
> > >
> > > That was the entry I was hoping to see.
> > >
> > > So, are all older WAL segments deleted or recycled?
> > > Is that a reasonably recent WAL segment?
> >
> > but there is files with very old time of creation:
> > $ ls -lart pg_wal/
> > total 30933220
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 299 Dec 30 05:44
> 000000020000013E00000097.00000108.backup
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Dec 30 06:12
> 000000010000000000000001
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Dec 30 06:12
> 000000020000013E00000098
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 44 Dec 30 06:29 00000002.history
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Dec 30 06:29
> 000000020000013E00000099
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Dec 30 09:01
> 000000020000013E0000009A
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Dec 30 09:57
> 000000020000013E0000009B
> > ..... till now .....
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Mar 16 12:59
> 0000000200000145000000F2
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Mar 16 13:50
> 0000000200000145000000F3
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Mar 16 14:39
> 0000000200000145000000F4
> > drwx------ 2 postgres postgres 118784 Mar 16 14:39 archive_status
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Mar 16 15:19
> 0000000200000145000000F6
> > drwx------ 3 postgres postgres 94208 Mar 16 15:19 .
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Mar 16 15:25
> 0000000200000145000000F5
> > drwx------ 19 postgres postgres 4096 Mar 16 15:25 ..
> >
> > and on master current WAL-file:
> > postgres=# select pg_walfile_name(pg_current_wal_lsn());
> > pg_walfile_name
> > --------------------------
> > 0000000200000145000000F6
> > (1 row)
>
> These things hold up deletion of WAL segments:
>
> - checkpoint (not the problem here)
>
> - replication slot (you said that is not it)
>
> - archiver failure (also doesn't seem to be the problem)
>
> - wal_keep_segments / wal_keep_size: what is your setting?
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
> --
> Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
>
>
