bricklen <bricklen@gmail.com> writes: > Yes, it is definitely a table. There was originally an index on that table > which threw the original error (about sibling mismatch). I dropped the > index and attempted to recreate it, which failed. Further investigation led > to discovery of corruption in the table.
There are several hot standby servers attached to the master, some streaming, and one in a different data centre that is using WAL shipping only.
The streaming slave IIRC got the corruption from the master (I can't check now, it was rebuilt).
What would have happened to the WAL-shipping-only standby if the WALs were all applied? Would it have it balked at applying a WAL containing bad data from the master, or would it have applied the WAL and continued on? For the latter, would physical corruption on the master even transfer via WAL?
I didn't get a chance to answer those questions because we promoted the DR WAL-shipping standby before it got to the corrupted section.