Re: BUG #17524: Increase in WAL size due to logical replication with publication contain a table with low activity.
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17524: Increase in WAL size due to logical replication with publication contain a table with low activity. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+BJDrwp=jWGcXY6iuicnc1Y5ACNNa5hQBcNFykEfaCCA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BUG #17524: Increase in WAL size due to logical replication with publication contain a table with low activity. (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17524: Increase in WAL size due to logical replication with publication contain a table with low activity.
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 7:07 PM PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote: > > The following bug has been logged on the website: > > Bug reference: 17524 > Logged by: Raman Kumar > Email address: raman.kumar@r-indventures.com > PostgreSQL version: 13.6 > Operating system: Ubuntu > Description: > > We are using logical replication to source the event from postgres. and > publication includes a single table with (Insert, update, delete and > truncate ). > Everything works great, Until we run into a strange issue i.e. Increase is > the disk usage, abnormally. > On looking further we have found that some of the disk space occupy by the > wal. > Using this query > ``` > Select slot_name, pg_current_wal_lsn(), confirmed_flush_lsn, > (pg_current_wal_lsn() - confirmed_flush_lsn) as lag from > pg_replication_slots; > ``` > ``` > "slot_name" "pg_current_wal_lsn" "confirmed_flush_lsn" "lsn_distance" > "poc_kafka_connect" "109C/AC001020" "109C/94909990" 393180816 > ``` > > ``` > select usename, client_addr, pg_current_wal_lsn(), flush_lsn, > (pg_current_wal_lsn() - flush_lsn) as lag from pg_stat_replication; > ``` > > ``` > "usename" "client_addr" "pg_current_wal_lsn" "flush_lsn" "lag" > "postgres" "x.x.x.x" "109C/AC0011A0" "109C/94909990" 393181200 > ``` > > We have notice the replication lag. But as the publication includes on the > single table, the last changes are already replicated/published. > So Technically there is no replication lag as per publication. > The lag is computed based on the difference between the WAL location written in the publisher and the WAL location confirmed by the subscriber as replayed. Normally for non-published data, the latest WAL location is confirmed by the subscriber either because we send an empty transaction (pair of BEGIN ... COMMIT commands) or via keep-alive messages. Now, it is not clear why none of those is working in your case? Are there any large transactions happening on the non-published tables? You can once check data/pg_replslot directory to confirm if there are any spill files present there? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: