| From: | Jon Erdman <postgresql(at)thewickedtribe(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Chained slaves smaller? |
| Date: | 2017-06-23 19:40:28 |
| Message-ID: | A057D712-C5AA-41F1-BAA4-79115B4986AA@thewickedtribe.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
I have SR set up in a couple of datacenters, where there’s a master in DC_A with 2 slaves, and a 3rd slave off that master in DC_ B. Also, in DC_B I have 2 slaves chained off the “local master”. Our main database is ~551GB in DC_A and on the replica in B that is subscribed to the real master. However, on one of the chained slaves in DC_B that database is only 484GB. The only thing different about this smaller slave is that it was created by taking a basebackup from the “local master” in DC_B rather than sucking it over the WAN from the true master in DC_A.
This makes no sense to me since I thought SR replicas are bit for bit copies, so I’m somewhat concerned. Any ideas how this could be?
—
Jon Erdman
Postgres Zealot
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jerry Sievers | 2017-06-23 20:37:22 | Re: Chained slaves smaller? |
| Previous Message | Igal @ Lucee.org | 2017-06-23 19:37:10 | Re: Download 9.6.3 Binaries |