Nevermind. Turns out it was on the wrong timeline and replication was broken. It was smaller because it was 77 days behind. (facepalm)
> On Jun 23, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Jon Erdman <postgre...@thewickedtribe.net> wrote: > > 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 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
