| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> |
| Cc: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hilbert, Karin" <ioh1(at)psu(dot)edu>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Database size different on Primary and Standby? |
| Date: | 2023-01-19 01:09:00 |
| Message-ID: | 3967467.1674090540@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> writes:
> On 19/01/2023 01:23 CET Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> This is incorrect; with streaming replication all changes applied on the primary
>> are applied on the standby.
> Thanks. I was thinking about logical replication.
It's not entirely clear whether the OP is talking about physical or
logical replication --- the discrepancy would sure be a lot easier
to explain if it is logical rep. In physical rep the databases
*should* be pretty much physically identical. I think though that
the amount of WAL that's being kept around could be different.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron | 2023-01-19 02:13:00 | Re: Database size different on Primary and Standby? |
| Previous Message | Erik Wienhold | 2023-01-19 00:47:07 | Re: Database size different on Primary and Standby? |