Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

On 04/06/2017 11:18 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:

Hi,
2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
<mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>>:

    On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:

        Hi,

        2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver
        <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
        <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
        <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>>>:

            On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:

            Postgres version?

        9.6.1


                Hi,
                I had two replication slots on my primary. Slaves off and
                (around 800)
                WALs kept as expected.


            Slaves off means?:


            You replication set up from the master to the slaves(how many?).
            Then you disconnected the slaves how?

        I have 2 slaves configured with async replication but they were down
         when I dropped the slots.

            So the 800 WALs number mean you have wal_keep_segments set
        to 800?

        No,  wal_keep_segments is commented.
        800 is the rough number of files I saw in xlog dir before
        dropping the
        slots.


    What are your settings for?:

    archive_mode

archive_mode is off


    archive_command

it's set as I tested it some months ago but now archive_mode is off


    Do you see anything in the Postgres log that might apply?

No, nothing

I am not sure what is going on.

Are the number of WAL files still growing?

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com