On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:51 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> See the error messages on a standby:
>
> == wal removal
>
> postgres=# SELECT * FROM pg_logical_slot_get_changes('lsub4_slot', NULL, NULL, 'include-xids', '0');
> ERROR: can no longer get changes from replication slot "lsub4_slot"
> DETAIL: This slot has been invalidated because it exceeded the maximum reserved size.
>
> == wal level
>
> postgres=# select conflict_reason from pg_replication_slots where slot_name = 'lsub5_slot';;
> conflict_reason
> ------------------------
> wal_level_insufficient
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=# SELECT * FROM pg_logical_slot_get_changes('lsub5_slot', NULL, NULL, 'include-xids', '0');
> ERROR: can no longer get changes from replication slot "lsub5_slot"
> DETAIL: This slot has been invalidated because it was conflicting with recovery.
>
> == rows removal
>
> postgres=# select conflict_reason from pg_replication_slots where slot_name = 'lsub6_slot';;
> conflict_reason
> -----------------
> rows_removed
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=# SELECT * FROM pg_logical_slot_get_changes('lsub6_slot', NULL, NULL, 'include-xids', '0');
> ERROR: can no longer get changes from replication slot "lsub6_slot"
> DETAIL: This slot has been invalidated because it was conflicting with recovery.
>
> As you can see, only wal level and rows removal are mentioning conflict with
> recovery.
>
> So, are we already "wrong" mentioning "wal_removed" in conflict_reason?
It looks like yes. So, how about we fix it the way proposed here -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACVd_dizYQiZwwUfsb%2BhG-fhGYo_kEDq0wn_vNwQvOrZHg%40mail.gmail.com?
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com