Thanks for the comment. At Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:06:55 +0800, Craig Ringer <craig.rin...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in <CAMsr+YGkmJ2aweanT4JF9_i_xS_bGTZkdKW-_=2a88yegan...@mail.gmail.com> > > We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync > > replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is > > contrary to expectation on synchronous replication. > > Isn't this prevented by using a physical replication slot? > > You hint that you looked at slots but they didn't meet your needs in some > way. I'm not sure I understood the last part.
Yes, repslot does the similar. The point was whether "Do we expect that removal of necessary WAL doesn't occur on an active sync replication?", with a strong doubt. At Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:16:22 -0800, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote in <20161118181622.hklschaizwaxo...@alap3.anarazel.de> > On 2016-11-18 14:12:42 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync > > replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is > > contrary to expectation on synchronous replication. > > I don't think you can expect anything else. I think this is the answer for it. regards, -- 堀口恭太郎 日本電信電話株式会社 NTTオープンソースソフトウェアセンタ Phone: 03-5860-5115 / Fax: 03-5463-5490 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
