On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:51 AM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> Greetings, > > * Dave Peticolas (d...@krondo.com) wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 5:09 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On 09/01/2018 04:45 PM, Dave Peticolas wrote: > > > > > > > Well restoring from a backup of the primary does seem to have fixed > the > > > > issue with the corrupt table. > > > > > > Pretty sure it was not that the table was corrupt but that transaction > > > information was missing from pg_clog. > > > > > > In a previous post you mentioned you ran tar to do the snapshot of > > > $PG_DATA. > > > > > > Was there any error when tar ran the backup that caused you problems? > > > > Well the interesting thing about that is that although the bad table was > > originally discovered in a DB restored from a snapshot, I subsequently > > discovered it in the real-time clone of the primary from which the > backups > > are made. So somehow the clone's table became corrupted. The same table > was > > not corrupt on the primary, but I have discovered an error on the primary > > -- it's in the thread I posted today. These events seem correlated in > time, > > I'll have to mine the logs some more. > > Has this primary been the primary since inception, or was it promoted to > be one at some point after first being built as a replica..? It was the primary since inception. All the problems now appear to have stemmed from the primary due to a bug in 9.6.8 (see other thread). I've since upgraded to 9.6.10.
