Re: Requested WAL segment xxx has already been removed

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 at 11:24, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 at 11:24, Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  The configuration is as expected. My test script simulates two distinct hosts
>  by utilizing local archive storage.
>
>  For physical replication across distinct hosts without shared WAL archive
>  storage, WALs are archived locally (in my test).
>
>  When the primary's walsender needs a WAL file from the archive that's not in
>  its pg_wal directory, manual copying is required to the primary's pg_wal or the
>  standby's pg_wal (or its archive directory, and use restore_command to fetch it).
>
>  What prevents us from using the primary's restore_command to retrieve the
>  necessary WALs?
>
> I am just talking about the practical side of local archive storage.
>

Yes, it's quite niche in its usage.

> Such archives will be gone along with the server in case of disaster and therefore they bring only a little value.
> With the same success, physical standby can use restore_command to copy files from the archive on the primary via
> ssh/rsync or similar. This approach is used for ages and works just fine.
>

However, some environments might prohibit password-free scp or the use of
shared directories.

> What is really painful right now, logical walsenders can only look into pg_wal, and unfortunately replication slots
don't
> give 100% guarantee for WAL retention because of max_slot_wal_keep_size.
> That is, using restore_command for logical walsenders would be really helpful and solve some problems and pain
points
> with logical replication.
>

I agree; logical walsenders offer greater value than physical ones.

> However, if we start calling restore_command also for physical walsenders it might result in increased resource usage
on
> primary without providing much additional value. For example, restore_command is failing, but standby indefinitely
> continues making replication connection attempts.
>

IIRC, the standby will indefinitely attempt to connect for replication, even
without restore_command configured.

> I don't mind if it will also work for physical replication, but IMO there should be a possibility to opt out from
it.
>

-- 
Regards,
Japin Li