Thanks for the comment.
At Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:06:55 +0800, Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in
<CAMsr+YGkmJ2aweanT4JF9_i_xS_bGTZkdKW-_=2A88yEGansPA@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 <andres@anarazel.de> wrote in
<20161118181622.hklschaizwaxocl7@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