On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 11:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > It might be worth trawling through both files to check the page headers > (every 8K) and see which ones agree with expectation and which don't. > The state of the ...0058 file might be explained by the theory that > you'd archived it a bit too late (after the first page had been > overwritten with newer WAL data),
The interlock with .ready and .done should prevent reuse of a file. So the only way this could happen is if the archive_command queued a request to copy, rather than performing the copy immediately. So I was going to say "thats not possible", but perhaps rsync might become confused by the file renaming mechanism we use? > but the ...0059 file seems just plain > broken. Yeh > I am starting to wonder about hardware or OS misfeasance > causing writes to be lost or misdirected. Agreed -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
