Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps
 (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1gHBOY-0006cn-Lh
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 17:32:06 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1gHBOW-0000yX-Hp
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 17:32:04 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <jd@commandprompt.com>)
	id 1gHBOW-0000v5-AS
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 17:32:04 +0000
Received: from lists.commandprompt.com ([69.168.55.30])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <jd@commandprompt.com>)
	id 1gHBOS-0003hg-6U
	for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 17:32:03 +0000
Received: from [192.168.50.9] (spinlock.commandprompt.com [69.168.55.30])
	by lists.commandprompt.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 10C1175E
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c-73-97-49-9.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.97.49.9]
	helo=[192.168.50.9]) by assp.commandprompt.com with SMTPSA(TLSv1_2
 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) (2.5.1);
	29 Oct 2018 10:31:56 -0700
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Subject: replication_slots usability issue
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
Message-ID: <56672097-711c-126a-a63e-04e7940110ad@commandprompt.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:31:56 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------C14CFC3EA275B3CC0F69CFF8"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Assp-Version: 2.5.1(16177) on assp.commandprompt.com
X-Assp-ID: assp.commandprompt.com m1-34316-12036
X-Assp-Session: 7F9C3075EC98 (mail 1)
X-Assp-Original-Subject: replication_slots usability issue
X-Assp-Client-SSL: yes
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Precedence: bulk

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------C14CFC3EA275B3CC0F69CFF8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-Hackers,


Working on 9.6 today (unsure if fixed in newer versions). Had an issue 
where the wal was 280G despite max_wal_size being 8G. Found out there 
were stale replication slots from a recent base backup. I went to drop 
the replication slots and found that since the wal_level was set to 
minimal vs replica or higher, I couldn't drop the replication slot. 
Clearly that makes sense for creating a replication slot but it seems 
like an artificial limitation for dropping them.


JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****


--------------C14CFC3EA275B3CC0F69CFF8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p><font size="+1"><tt>-Hackers,</tt></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><tt><br>
        </tt></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><tt>Working on 9.6 today (unsure if fixed in
          newer versions). Had an issue where the wal was 280G despite
          max_wal_size being 8G. Found out there were stale replication
          slots from a recent base backup. I went to drop the
          replication slots and found that since the wal_level was set
          to minimal vs replica or higher, I couldn't drop the
          replication slot. Clearly that makes sense for creating a
          replication slot but it seems like an artificial limitation
          for dropping them.</tt></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><tt><br>
        </tt></font></p>
    <p><font size="+1"><tt>JD</tt></font><br>
    </p>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://the.postgres.company/">http://the.postgres.company/</a> || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development. 
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://postgresconf.org">https://postgresconf.org</a>
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****</pre>
  </body>
</html>

--------------C14CFC3EA275B3CC0F69CFF8--