Dale Fukami <dale.fukami@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Either way, if it's working on the master, then you've had a replication >> failure since the standby's files evidently don't match the master's. >> >> What PG version is this (and which versions have been installed since >> the replication was set up)? Have you had any system-level crashes on >> the standby? > My apologies: PostgreSQL 9.0.5 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC > gcc-4.4.real (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3, 64-bit > This is the only version we've had since we've set up streaming replication. > We believe we've found the moment of corruption. It appears that the db was > shutdown then restarted and didn't quite catch up to the master and then > was shut down again. We use this standby to take snapshots on a regular > basis but it looks like this one didn't quite get into a consistent state > before the next one started. Logs pasted at the end of this email. Hm ... there was a fix in 9.0.12 that might be relevant to this: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=5840e3181b7e6c784fdb3aff708c4dcc2dfe551d Whether that explains it or not, 9.0.5 is getting long in the tooth; you really need to think about an update. Especially in view of CVE-2013-1899. > 1) We were quite lucky I think to have discovered this issue. I think the > only other way we'd have noticed would have been if we'd failed over to it > and our app stopped working. I'm worried now that we'll end up in a similar > situation and won't have known it for many weeks. At some point we lose the > ability to PITR based on how many backups are kept. Is there a way to be > more confident in our standby machines? I think you should update your PG version and then resync your standbys (ie, apply a fresh base backup) at the next convenient maintenance window. > Just to clear up the confusion that I had caused John. I had obscured the > previous schema name by restoring from snapshots and altering the schema > name itself. So, the queries and output are an exact copy/paste from my > terminal. I get the same results on the Live standby when using the actual > Live schema name but, obviously, it shows the Live schema name rather than > 'someschema'. Well, in that case there's the question of whether you'd duplicated the standby's state accurately ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
