2023年1月19日(木) 8:50 Erik Wienhold <e...@ewie.name>: > > > 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.
This is incorrect; with streaming replication all changes applied on the primary are applied on the standby. (...) > Could also be different page sizes. But that's a compilation option. What does > SHOW block_size say on those systems? It is impossible to start a standby using binaries built with a different block size to the primary. Regards Ian Barwick
