| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vitaliy Gomenyuk <vgomenyuk(at)callfire(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Aleksandr Saraseka <asaraseka(at)callfire(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14635: Query is executed slower on hot standby slave database then on master database |
| Date: | 2017-05-12 17:30:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20170512173055.GD6721@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:26:17AM +1000, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> The contents of the indexes should be the same, so why is the slave
> returning so many more rows? It has to be because the index entries are
> not marked as killed (known-dead-to-everybody), or not being treated as
> killed, in the slave. I vaguely recall that there's a difference in the
> rules for index entry visibility on slaves, but it's not clear to me why
> that should be.
>
>
> The index cleanup by the full vacuum and vacuum one page are WAL logged,
> so when they gets replayed on the slave, both the indexes must be same.
>
> May be the WAL didn't replayed on the slave because of conflict transaction?
> Or Any other scenarios it may be different?
We don't WAL-log hint bits. Could that affect queries running on the
standbys?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jeremy | 2017-05-12 17:40:59 | BUG #14649: Function Namespace Resolution Bug |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-12 16:54:36 | Re: Crash observed during the start of the Postgres process |