Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
| От | Andres Freund |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 201209210010.35352.andres@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
|
| Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:38:52 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Thursday, September 20, 2012 07:15:17 PM Tom Lane wrote: > >> Hmm. There is a fix for a slave-side-index-corruption problem in 9.1.6, > >> which is due to be announced Monday. I am not certain whether this is > >> the same thing though; that bug is low-probability as far as we can > >> tell (it would only happen if the master had been in the middle of an > >> index page split or page deletion at the instant of failover). Anyway > >> the first thing to find out is whether 9.1.6 fixes it. > > > > I think the likelihood of that bug causing the the index file to be zero > > bytes > > > - at least thats what I read from $subject - is really, really small: > Sure, but what about the heap? The case I was speculating about was > that the heap had been truncated, but because of the corruption problem, > the index still had heap pointers in it. We don't know what file 16585 > is supposed to be. Hm. Interesting thought. *think* Wouldn't the truncation have created a completely new index relation? Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: