Hi,
On 2014-05-29 10:14:25 -0700, Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
> > I wonder why the failure didn't show the record that triggered the
> > error? This is on a primary?
> No, I ran pg_xlogdump on the failed replica--I thought that's what Heikki
> was suggesting (and it seemed to me like the source of the problem would be
> there).
The WAL should be the same everywhere... But what I was wondering about
was less about the xlogdump but more about the lack of a message that
tells us the record that triggered the error.
> My hope^Wguess is that this is a symptom of
> > 1a917ae8610d44985fd2027da0cfe60ccece9104 (not released) or even
> > 9a57858f1103b89a5674f0d50c5fe1f756411df6 (9.3.4). Once the hot chain is
> > corrupted such errors could occur
> > When were those standbys made? Did the issue occur on the primary as
> > well?
> >
> The original ancestor was a 9.3.2. No problems on the primary.
So, this is quite possibly just a 'delayed' consequence from the earlier
bugs.
> PS: wal-e's intersperesed output is rather annoying...
> I thought it might be relevant. I'll exclude it in the future.
Wasn't really related to this bug. More of a general observation that it
frequently is a bit verbose...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
