Re: [GENERAL] Chained slaves smaller?

Nevermind. Turns out it was on the wrong timeline and replication was broken. It was smaller because it was 77 days
behind.(facepalm) 

> On Jun 23, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Jon Erdman <postgresql@thewickedtribe.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have SR set up in a couple of datacenters, where there’s a master in DC_A with 2 slaves, and a 3rd slave off that
masterin DC_ B. Also, in DC_B I have 2 slaves chained off the “local master”. Our main database is ~551GB in DC_A and
onthe replica in B that is subscribed to the real master. However, on one of the chained slaves in DC_B that database
isonly 484GB. The only thing different about this smaller slave is that it was created by taking a basebackup from the
“localmaster” in DC_B rather than sucking it over the WAN from the true master in DC_A.  
>
> This makes no sense to me since I thought SR replicas are bit for bit copies, so I’m somewhat concerned. Any ideas
howthis could be? 
> —
> Jon Erdman
> Postgres Zealot