Re: broken tables on hot standby after migration on PostgreSQL 16 (3x times last month)

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: broken tables on hot standby after migration on PostgreSQL 16 (3x times last month)
Date: 2024-05-17 20:03:09
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkGE_QYm1ZF0NhR4S=c2GomUb3o7ecPCwe--Trapu898g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 3:50 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> You're saying that the data is correctly accessible on primaries, but broken
> on standbys? Is there any difference in how the page looks like on the primary
> vs standby?

There clearly is. The relevant infomask bits are different. I didn't
examine it much closer than that, though.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2024-05-17 20:05:15 Re: broken tables on hot standby after migration on PostgreSQL 16 (3x times last month)
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2024-05-17 20:00:55 Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.