On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 11:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It might be worth trawling through both files to check the page headers
> (every 8K) and see which ones agree with expectation and which don't.
> The state of the ...0058 file might be explained by the theory that
> you'd archived it a bit too late (after the first page had been
> overwritten with newer WAL data),
The interlock with .ready and .done should prevent reuse of a file. So
the only way this could happen is if the archive_command queued a
request to copy, rather than performing the copy immediately.
So I was going to say "thats not possible", but perhaps rsync might
become confused by the file renaming mechanism we use?
> but the ...0059 file seems just plain
> broken.
Yeh
> I am starting to wonder about hardware or OS misfeasance
> causing writes to be lost or misdirected.
Agreed
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com