On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 8:50 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
>
> > Does that by any chance mean you are using a non-community version of
> > Postgres which has some other changes?
>
> It is a managed Postgres service in the general cloud. Usually, such
> providers apply some custom minor patches.
> The
> Does that by any chance mean you are using a non-community version of
> Postgres which has some other changes?
It is a managed Postgres service in the general cloud. Usually, such
providers apply some custom minor patches.
The only one I know about - about forbidding of canceling queries
while
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 2:14 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
>
> > The point which is not completely clear from your description is the
> > timing of missing records. In one of your previous emails, you seem to
> > have indicated that the data missed from Table B is from the time when
> > the initial
Hello, Amid.
> The point which is not completely clear from your description is the
> timing of missing records. In one of your previous emails, you seem to
> have indicated that the data missed from Table B is from the time when
> the initial sync for Table B was in-progress, right? Also, from
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 4:52 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> > None of these entries are from the point mentioned by you [1]
> > yesterday where you didn't find the corresponding data in the
> > subscriber. How did you identify that the entries corresponding to
> > that timing were
Hello.
> None of these entries are from the point mentioned by you [1]
> yesterday where you didn't find the corresponding data in the
> subscriber. How did you identify that the entries corresponding to
> that timing were missing?
Some of the before the interval, some after... But the source
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:49 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
>
>
> Probably a small part of WAL was somehow skipped by logical worker in
> all that mess.
>
None of these entries are from the point mentioned by you [1]
yesterday where you didn't find the corresponding data in the
subscriber. How did
Hello, Amit!
> IUC, this is the time when only table B's initial sync was
> in-progress. Table A's initial sync was finished by that time and for
> Table C, it is yet not started.
Yes, it is correct. C was started too, but unsuccessfully (restarted
after, see below).
> During the time of
> the
On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 8:50 PM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
>
> Hello again.
>
> Just small a fix for:
>
> > 2022-12-14 09:21:25.705 to
> > 2022-12-14 09:49:20.664 (after synchronization start, but before finish).
>
> Correct values are:
>
> 2022-12-14 09:49:31.340
> 2022-12-14 09:49:41.683
>
> So,
Hello again.
Just small a fix for:
> 2022-12-14 09:21:25.705 to
> 2022-12-14 09:49:20.664 (after synchronization start, but before finish).
Correct values are:
2022-12-14 09:49:31.340
2022-12-14 09:49:41.683
So, it looks like we lost about 10s of one of the tables WAL.
Hello.
Just a small story about small data-loss on logical replication.
We were logically replicating a 4 TB database from
> PostgreSQL 12.12 (Ubuntu 12.12-201-yandex.49163.d86383ed5b) on
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04) 7.5.0,
> 64-bit
to
> PostgreSQL
11 matches
Mail list logo
