Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uHbB5-005SBv-9A for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 May 2025 04:35:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uHbA5-002VMH-4u for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 May 2025 04:34:36 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uHbA4-002VM8-OC for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 May 2025 04:34:36 +0000 Received: from mail-io1-xd44.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::d44]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uHbA2-0004e6-1c for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 May 2025 04:34:35 +0000 Received: by mail-io1-xd44.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-85e73562577so695819439f.0 for ; Tue, 20 May 2025 21:34:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1747802073; x=1748406873; darn=lists.postgresql.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pj34hHsfoCMle38iMOmIXT9KEMVP+2q8uT31XVmtEf4=; b=NQIB3+dXV/ZGIme/fb/xu4Z6VbTNIOtT+EFdUhCZn044V2mVLyLZa4bnQNBTdwMZJd L0Oc2tCsLjdo6qyKFM8H+/ulpCpU+8rGweU10sI4UYSD0APDHVIgH1QYVGZvgnFLyphG VJkEltO4+pHtjlJGlqzJal+wckJ4q0OxUXG09sJiSrJ8vr63Tsk+zrilJb5QHvZugdmT JtO3yCFvis6Y/K4F8umvbNO6J3TWbdpHmEE4rpRRzH9kx7lCV8bM+br7O5e7Vde59niu DPiZ+//y4Fb3vo0Hv6dJ+tsNkeOmuOqMirwXol4sH6rnzuRvPM8taHFe1mxyOGOc2lDs XZ+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1747802073; x=1748406873; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pj34hHsfoCMle38iMOmIXT9KEMVP+2q8uT31XVmtEf4=; b=HgOObWPSkpMm3P9qfOZcknQJMM5pvtN9NNk+HvVkrk+BAJErxeHW6FGGfV50jhr1Qw fEiDrYZHtz60/vSWpqU+a2o2ojyFxcGm5VcAUWWUrd3Hnivopidw9HrFzm52SmzO+7J5 5qnDGRLth59B+CCFWdatmxhc8Ov1LTDLDvxa6G/Y+EKEGeUmaCR9aaQ6waR4fSU56MrP zoAAVgGSjg4RGP9I0GCyXlv9YeR6r1PiHjiOBaEFisobD+lL5Ga2a8CKlWmMRCivkXvN xkpN9q5nG1TawkcBsqpBmDbpnkGKsX1rI729iEATIQCbeDPXoOGlJeg/Y6A9WaKjL4C+ Aocg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YywDYwMZph4iGIpT87yt4uyqDT36hHAWBWG0PNzSS6STXD/sI4U E7YilV/RU/HhSsGoeSD8ntJ8wOLF4ITBlByxu1Y00YUb3DvkjTyj1yga0LcmN1ooiKJCBnEqzgB 5WiPmHFSAO/jXUE/a+zt0xLIvklTYZP/qx/pxUyA= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuLmBQI0gRFmcPB7dV+oapO1dXD/30HxAhRVYSq+mUH76Dt0//RgDXw0kD3KVR 3HKr2768vySSxrwaoJJgwgVL5Ztz8CSx8KmbcdEyg820Ke32qy6/VNI0aYnXLMFcDD+sIVPZkP4 AWc+BfNT8ZeIii774brgN4s4aYmiUz6cs6+A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG5gil6pLuF0oI2Hz9WGKOUxWpRRtWwfXZW4/Qe0jZZ1UjLmb0mJ6ptQxiH194jhLrMLWMHvoznabDQ3I3qlqs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:349c:b0:3d0:239a:c46a with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3db842ba729mr197456545ab.9.1747802073592; Tue, 20 May 2025 21:34:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Marcelo Fernandes Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 16:34:22 +1200 X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFvpiw_lvZeJ8UvLRIJeqlaA7JB6xjezZ9P_gU8-l3Vx0c4TUNgY2AX22bk Message-ID: Subject: Do stuck replication slots prevent autovacuum of running entirely? To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Hi there, I am trying to understand if a stuck replication slot would be sufficient to stop an autovacuum of even starting. Couldn't the autovacuum process start, but fail to remove dead tuples that are still necessary by the replication slot? Why would it prevent autovacuum of even starting instead? Thanks.