On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Petr Jelinek wrote: >> So the only way to fulfill the requirement you stated is to just not try >> to drop the slot, ever, on DROP SUBSCRIPTION. That makes the default >> behavior leave resources on upstream that will eventually cause that >> server to stop unless user notices before. I think we better invent >> something that limits how much inactive slots can hold back WAL and >> catalog_xmin in this release as well then. > > I don't understand why isn't the default behavior to unconditionally > drop the slot. Why do we ever want the slot to be kept?
What if the remote server doesn't exist any more? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
