> On 19/01/2023 00:09 CET Hilbert, Karin <i...@psu.edu> wrote: > > I manage some PostgreSQL clusters on Linux. We have a Primary & two Standby > servers & for Production, there is also a DR server. We use repmgr for our HA > solution & the Standbys are cloned from the Primary using the repmgr standby > clone command. > > My manager asked for a report of all the user databases & their sizes for each > server in the cluster. I used the psql "\l+" command & then extracted the > database name & the size from the output. I expected the databases to be the > same size on the Standbys as on the Primary, but I found that some of the > databases were smaller on the Standby servers than on the Primary. > > For example, the output on the Primary for one of the user databases showed > as: 8997 kB, but on the Standbys, it was 8849 kB.
The standbys could be missing some indexes because schema changes are not replicated and must be applied manually. > I even dropped the database on the Primary & then restored it from a backup. > Then checked the sizes again & they still showed the difference. > > I also found that the template1 database on the Primary was 7821 kB, but on > the Standbys, it was 7673 kB. Is this normal? Why would the sizes be > different? Is template1 identical (schema and data) on primary and standby? Could also be different page sizes. But that's a compilation option. What does SHOW block_size say on those systems? -- Erik
