2017-04-07 15:57 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com>:
> On 04/06/2017 11:18 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> 2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com >> <mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com>>: >> >> On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver >> <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> >> <mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com >> <mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com>>>: >> >> On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: >> >> Postgres version? >> >> 9.6.1 >> >> >> Hi, >> I had two replication slots on my primary. Slaves off and >> (around 800) >> WALs kept as expected. >> >> >> Slaves off means?: >> >> >> You replication set up from the master to the slaves(how >> many?). >> Then you disconnected the slaves how? >> >> I have 2 slaves configured with async replication but they were >> down >> when I dropped the slots. >> >> So the 800 WALs number mean you have wal_keep_segments set >> to 800? >> >> No, wal_keep_segments is commented. >> 800 is the rough number of files I saw in xlog dir before >> dropping the >> slots. >> >> >> What are your settings for?: >> >> archive_mode >> >> archive_mode is off >> >> >> archive_command >> >> it's set as I tested it some months ago but now archive_mode is off >> >> >> Do you see anything in the Postgres log that might apply? >> >> No, nothing >> > > I am not sure what is going on. > > Are the number of WAL files still growing? No, once I restarted the server, they got deleted. The problem was only before restarting the server. Regards Pupillo > > > > -- > Adrian Klaver > adrian.kla...@aklaver.com >
