Keith Pierno <kpierno@lulu.com> writes:
> I was able to find the file, which was from the date of the failure
> (Tuesday June 9th). My question is why the backup from this morning
> would all of a sudden require a file from the 9th even though 5 hours
> of logs were able to be applied?
It was apparently busy applying the logs that were from the old primary.
When it got up to the point where the failover occurred, kaboom :-(.
It would have had trouble in any case there because the subsequent log
files are presumably numbered 00000006... instead of 00000004...
Were you getting those shipped over properly from the new primary?
regards, tom lane