Re: Corrupted Data ? - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Adrian Klaver |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Corrupted Data ? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 833d31e6-3017-8be7-f6c9-74212ae13e89@aklaver.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Corrupted Data ? (Ioana Danes <ioanadanes@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Corrupted Data ?
|
List | pgsql-general |
On 08/08/2016 09:47 AM, Ioana Danes wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Adrian Klaver > <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>> wrote: > > On 08/08/2016 09:28 AM, Ioana Danes wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Adrian Klaver > <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> > <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com > <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>>> wrote: > > On 08/08/2016 09:11 AM, Ioana Danes wrote: > > Hi, > > I suspect I am having a case of data corruption. Here > are the > details: > > I am running postgres 9.4.8: > > postgresql94-9.4.8-1PGDG.rhel7.x86_64 > postgresql94-contrib-9.4.8-1PGDG.rhel7.x86_64 > postgresql94-libs-9.4.8-1PGDG.rhel7.x86_64 > postgresql94-server-9.4.8-1PGDG.rhel7.x86_64 > > on CentOS Linux release 7.2.1511 (Core) > > This is happening in a production environment but > luckily on the > reporting database. > I have a cluster of 3 databases, db1 and db2 are masters and > replicate > between each other and also replicate to db3 (db1 <-> > db2, db1 > -> db3, > db2 -> db3). > For replication I am using Bucardo. > > > I would say this is more a question for the Burcardo list: > > https://mail.endcrypt.com/mailman/listinfo/bucardo-general > <https://mail.endcrypt.com/mailman/listinfo/bucardo-general> > <https://mail.endcrypt.com/mailman/listinfo/bucardo-general > <https://mail.endcrypt.com/mailman/listinfo/bucardo-general>> > > I am just not seeing that replicating two masters on to a single > database is going to end well. > > > Only one master is active at one time the other one is in stand > by that > is a topic for another discussion but in our case that works well. > > That was my first assumption, that it is a kind of a race > condition or a > bug on replication but I quickly ruled that out because that > does not > explain why when I filtered the table by transactionid = 75315815 it > shows one record with transactionid 75315811... > > select gameplayid, transactionid, encodedplay from > abrazo.matchgameplay > where transactionid in (75315815) order by transactionid;; > gameplayid | transactionid | encodedplay > ------------+---------------+-------------- > 160019271 | 75315815 | mix:9,0,9 > 160019269 | 75315815 | mix:9,8,9 > 160019267 | 75315815 | mix:9,2,2 > 160019265 | 75315815 | mix:2,2,8 > 160019263 | *75315811 *| backup:1,9,1 > 160019261 | 75315815 | backup:2,0,9 > > So I don't think it is a replication issue... > > > Other that, if I am following correctly, it is on the database(db3) > being replicated to. The only way db3 is getting its data is through > replication, is that correct?. On the master databases the data is > correct. > > OK, let's assume that what you're saying is correct and the replication > has a bug, or corruption or whatever that is and the record gets created > with transactionid = 75315811. Bucardo replication is trigger based and > it is using a copy command to insert the new records into the replicated > database. > > Then how can I explain that my query select gameplayid, transactionid, > encodedplay from abrazo.matchgameplay where transactionid in (75315815) > order by transactionid; returns me a record with transactionid 75315811??? Corrupted index on db3? Might want to look in the db3 logs to see if anything pops out. I just do not know enough about Burcardo to be of much help beyond that. > > Thanks, > ioana > > > > -- > Adrian Klaver > adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
pgsql-general by date: