Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-08 Thread Tom DalPozzo
2017-04-07 15:57 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver : > On 04/06/2017 11:18 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> 2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver > >: >> >> On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Ad

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-07 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 04/06/2017 11:18 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: Hi, 2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver 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 mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com>

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-06 Thread Chris Mair
Postgres version? 9.6.1 Have you considered upgrading to 9.6.2? There were some fixes, including WAL related: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6-2.html Not exactly regarding what you see, though... Bye, Chris. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing lis

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-06 Thread Tom DalPozzo
Hi, 2017-04-06 21:51 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver : > On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver > >: >> >> On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: >> >> Postgres version? >> >> 9.6.1 >> >> >>

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-06 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 04/04/2017 11:52 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: Hi, 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver 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 (arou

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-04 Thread Tom DalPozzo
Hi, 2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver : > 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 mas

Re: [GENERAL] keeping WAL after dropping replication slots

2017-04-04 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: Postgres version? 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? So the 80