Greetings, * Dave Peticolas (dave@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 5:09 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On 09/01/2018 04:45 PM, Dave Peticolas wrote: > > > > > Well restoring from a backup of the primary does seem to have fixed the > > > issue with the corrupt table. > > > > Pretty sure it was not that the table was corrupt but that transaction > > information was missing from pg_clog. > > > > In a previous post you mentioned you ran tar to do the snapshot of > > $PG_DATA. > > > > Was there any error when tar ran the backup that caused you problems? > > Well the interesting thing about that is that although the bad table was > originally discovered in a DB restored from a snapshot, I subsequently > discovered it in the real-time clone of the primary from which the backups > are made. So somehow the clone's table became corrupted. The same table was > not corrupt on the primary, but I have discovered an error on the primary > -- it's in the thread I posted today. These events seem correlated in time, > I'll have to mine the logs some more. Has this primary been the primary since inception, or was it promoted to be one at some point after first being built as a replica..? Thanks! Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
