Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary

Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Can we see the associated WAL records (ie, the ones matching the LSNs
>> in the last blocks of these files)?

> Sorry, I've lost track of what information I already shared or didn't,

Hm. So one of these is a heap update, not an index update, which lets
out the theory that it's something specific to indexes. But they are
all full-page-image updates, so the WAL replay code path for full-page
images still seems to be the suspect.

What version were you running before 9.1.11 exactly? I took a look
through all the diffs from 9.1.9 up to 9.1.11, and couldn't find any
changes that seemed even vaguely related to this. There are some
changes in known-transaction tracking, but it's hard to see a connection
there. Most of the other diffs are in code that wouldn't execute during
WAL replay at all.

regards, tom lane