Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1spXF5-002BxQ-LU for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:11:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1spXF5-001JxB-7g for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:11:31 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1spXF4-001Jx1-S4 for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:11:30 +0000 Received: from mail-ed1-x536.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1spXF2-0019s2-05 for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:11:29 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5c3cdba33b0so3862148a12.1 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 11:11:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1726337487; x=1726942287; darn=postgresql.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Ayx9mIEL1SoWjKlS0gSdaG7aRHxLLIglk07oIyFLYA0=; b=UOAmtPRVDP1KA0iL9PGfHWwqSLcEiJexz1FkBN1Hhn/qDwLNLsFvTMTP/rZydf2Y/u VLi7phLCuhUyZz6NGpwvN4s6C/bqH2O8xBFCdShDcPji5dyf8wJK5ItRFUcPMvfmOi4T ltnnA02u7sW6EatbYKw9yLUBucP3uYxvlKOQQl5uZfTk9OZc2dJqFyfIU4JC08duoypy WrP8y3vcSlOo2X7nDdkP6ZKnVfUv5SfBt88BK7jMii9xkSigsjzNdxHJmcmhDx1TuYKY M5lr+gPdB+dsOtkvJv52IumoPqlIat63aEH4RGzSKqK3zxJKa8COBx1HpgiEKT10INlp 5e3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1726337487; x=1726942287; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Ayx9mIEL1SoWjKlS0gSdaG7aRHxLLIglk07oIyFLYA0=; b=fahVeBjkaa7e+sEGUfNMl74Q8t7hGt6tMxqS6SMIh6pQTO8l90fnWsgeG99jcTUC9w MsbncQy6nkeWNe4G+GuezDJEqyUrgdM/1sK88zOyEOhV7pOMClglWErfRac9cgIlmZwB xDLUdh//mInQ7Y476sJFQsZxVov/Zu0HlBsHUmw+cGMDx5NQUf9DLvPkkZJ6W8dKLR75 lPdILlAQYXKh0u5R+tZx11Jz/aZ16ibGevGV67EbkKFj0sk3/9v/ltSSKBWDliXbzDJF +Z5y/b7e8DTBUtcPCPxXcZSTNcVQgyVA1HU+LJG1TerygHPmKV4Q5wkcN5OriLzr+Bk/ T1Lg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxxXEW2aJb/gP+0AaHhJJnfG2m4e6wesoklF56s+FKiX7peHDpg axk0la6ShPUIdAmKG3F/56+6c1ETg/+ycz6+2Xff8GosjNVwGiUgz6iPKBdpzrE5GmF3XCAbJi3 hKgB73hmmErQPn6demEWQwFJ5HdU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHo+g+u0vG7c3x+/ZNTtwllnhb/G8VCey7L2Ud6ok/nR+V8Ms0UODxGB+OPRrPpHmTwlx7rYaiKJYVLme0ACNQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:42c5:b0:5c2:6a7a:5795 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5c413e06c05mr8653166a12.6.1726337486526; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 11:11:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Vinay Oli Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:41:14 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Reg: Size difference To: Laurenz Albe Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a59f2606221844ef" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --000000000000a59f2606221844ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi , I've verified there's no crap sitting. I've checked the database size by meta command \l+ and even I checked from file system level du -sh 49181 folder. 49181 is the db oid. Thanks, Vinay kumar On Sat, Sep 14, 2024, 11:00=E2=80=AFPM Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Sat, 2024-09-14 at 22:49 +0530, Vinay Oli wrote: > > I'm currently facing a strange issue with PostgreSQL 15.0. I have a > > primary-standby setup that is in sync, with a replication slot in place= . > > There are 18 databases, and one of the databases on the primary side > > is 104 GB, while the same database on the standby side is 216 GB. > > Both are in sync with zero delay. > > Try and identify if any of the database objects are different in size. > That shouldn't happen. > > If all the database objects have the same size on both systems, the > explanation is likely some unrelated crap sitting in the data directory > on the standby. Try to identify files that exist on one system, but > not on the other. > > Yours, > Laurenz Albe > --000000000000a59f2606221844ef Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi ,


I've= verified there's no crap sitting. I've checked the database size b= y meta command \l+ and even I checked from file system level du -sh 49181 f= older. 49181 is the db oid.



Thanks,
Vinay kumar

On Sat, Sep 14, 2024, 11:00=E2=80=AFPM Laurenz Albe <<= a href=3D"mailto:laurenz.albe@cybertec.at">laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>= wrote:
On Sat, 2024-09-14 at 22:49= +0530, Vinay Oli wrote:
> I'm currently facing a strange issue with PostgreSQL 15.0. I have = a
> primary-standby setup that is in sync, with a replication slot in plac= e.
> There are 18 databases, and one of the databases on the primary side > is 104 GB, while the same database on the standby side is 216 GB.
> Both are in sync with zero delay.

Try and identify if any of the database objects are different in size.
That shouldn't happen.

If all the database objects have the same size on both systems, the
explanation is likely some unrelated crap sitting in the data directory
on the standby.=C2=A0 Try to identify files that exist on one system, but not on the other.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--000000000000a59f2606221844ef--