Well thanks for taking the time anyway. Indeed next time reduce the parts is a good idea.
I would still expect though that if a logical replica misses a WAL it would stop replicating (and / or report an inconsistent state). I know this is the case with binary replication (it stops replication). As a last question, do you know if this is also the case with logical replication as well, or is what happened here an "expected outcome" when a logical replica misses a WAL? Lars On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 5:52 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> wrote: > On 12/23/20 1:40 AM, Lars Vonk wrote: > > The full setup is: > > > > **Before: > > 11 primary -> 11 hotstandby binary > > > > **During migration > > 11 primary -> 11 hotstandby binary > > | -> 12 new instance via logical > > |-> 12 new replica via binary > > > > **After migration > > 12 primary > > |-> 12 replica via binary > > > > > > There are several moving parts here. I have to believe the problem is > related. Just not sure how to figure it out after the fact. The best I > can come up with is retry the process and monitor closely in real or > near real time to see if you can catch the issue. Another option is to > reduce the parts count by not running the binary 12 --> 12 replication > at the same time you are doing the 11 --> 12 logical replication. > > > -- > Adrian Klaver > adrian.kla...@aklaver.com >
