On 8/26/2010 11:03 AM, Guy Helmer wrote: >> It looks like there is one delete for user_id=34 missing. This could be >> caused by a corrupted index on sl_log_1. Can you do a >> >> REINDEX _replication.sl_log_1; >> >> and then repeat that SELECT? >> > > I had already manually intervened in the slave's table to get the replication > working again, so the sl_log_1 table was empty. I have run the REINDEX TABLE > _replication.sl_log_1 command, and the table is still empty...
Sure. The thing is that I recall from long ago a case where I had a corrupted sl_log_x index. I forgot which PG and/or Slony versions that was. The specific in that case was that one and the same heap tuple showed up in an index scan (same ctid), but not in a sequential scan. Since then we have moved away from deleting and vacuuming sl_log_x and simply truncate. What I am wondering is if you have encountered a similar case where an index tuple points to the wrong row and thus, the row that is missing isn't found in that index scan. You won't get a duplicate row if the wrong one it is pointing to is a deleted one. Jan -- Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
