Thanks Mitchell.
A simple count shows the same number of rows on both. I found some more
'advanced' count statements on the net, which did show minor
differences, but none that would explain inflation of the disk usage on
the slave. That said - disk usage is not typically a meaningful measure
of a database's consistency - that much I do realize. So this could just
be a byproduct of trigger-based transfer of data to a blank db - I dunno
(obligatory /not a pgdba from me). I ran a 'vacuum full' but there was
no change in space consumed.
A minor mystery, likely not important.
On 7/23/13 2:38 PM, Mitchell Perilstein wrote:
Are there actually rows missing if you do count(*) from db's on both
sides?
I'm wondering if pg_database_size() is measuring allocated space,
including some padding rows perhaps. If there is nothing missing,
perhaps the copy might have populated the target db less randomly than
the source db was created, in which case a vacuum and/or reindex might
bring them into line? (/not a pgdba)
On 07/23/2013 05:29 PM, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
I'm setting up bucardo for the first time. We have an existing
database, and I'm setting up a slave to become another master. I've
written a fairly detailed shell script to perform the steps
programmatically for consistency in deployment. There are only three
databases in play here.
After the one-time-copy, I issue the following boilerplate query to
see the sizes of the db's (cadged from the 'net):
SELECT d.datname AS Name, pg_catalog.pg_get_userbyid(d.datdba) AS
Owner,
CASE WHEN pg_catalog.has_database_privilege(d.datname, 'CONNECT')
THEN
pg_catalog.pg_size_pretty(pg_catalog.pg_database_size(d.datname))
ELSE 'No Access'
END AS Size
FROM pg_catalog.pg_database d
ORDER BY
CASE WHEN pg_catalog.has_database_privilege(d.datname, 'CONNECT')
THEN pg_catalog.pg_database_size(d.datname)
ELSE NULL
END DESC -- nulls first
LIMIT 20;
When I run it on the existing master, I get the following:
name | owner | size
--------------------------+----------+---------
db-1 | postgres | 696 MB
db-2 | postgres | 244 MB
db-3 | postgres | 44 MB
bucardo | bucardo | 7174 kB
postgres | postgres | 5510 kB
template1 | postgres | 5510 kB
template0 | postgres | 5408 kB
(7 rows)
When I run it on the server that has received the one-time-copy, I
get this:
name | owner | size
--------------------------+----------+---------
db-1 | postgres | 723 MB
db-2 | postgres | 325 MB
db-3 | postgres | 32 MB
bucardo | bucardo | 6694 kB
postgres | postgres | 5518 kB
template1 | postgres | 5510 kB
template0 | postgres | 5408 kB
(7 rows)
I'm by no means a postgresql dba, I'm merely the SA trying to get
this working. But I'm puzzled as to how the receiving databases would
be *larger* than the source. Am I missing something very basic here,
or is there a problem?
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) is
intended only for the recipients named above. It may contain
confidential or privileged information and should not be read, copied
or otherwise used by any other person. If you are not a named
recipient, please notify the sender of that fact and delete the e-mail
from your system.
--
Paul Theodoropoulos
www.anastrophe.com
_______________________________________________
Bucardo-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.endcrypt.com/mailman/listinfo/bucardo-general
