Re: BUG #10432: failed to re-find parent key in index
| От | Andres Freund |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: BUG #10432: failed to re-find parent key in index |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20140529171934.GP27914@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: BUG #10432: failed to re-find parent key in index (Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: BUG #10432: failed to re-find parent key in index
|
| Список | pgsql-bugs |
Hi, On 2014-05-29 10:14:25 -0700, Maciek Sakrejda wrote: > > I wonder why the failure didn't show the record that triggered the > > error? This is on a primary? > No, I ran pg_xlogdump on the failed replica--I thought that's what Heikki > was suggesting (and it seemed to me like the source of the problem would be > there). The WAL should be the same everywhere... But what I was wondering about was less about the xlogdump but more about the lack of a message that tells us the record that triggered the error. > My hope^Wguess is that this is a symptom of > > 1a917ae8610d44985fd2027da0cfe60ccece9104 (not released) or even > > 9a57858f1103b89a5674f0d50c5fe1f756411df6 (9.3.4). Once the hot chain is > > corrupted such errors could occur > > When were those standbys made? Did the issue occur on the primary as > > well? > > > The original ancestor was a 9.3.2. No problems on the primary. So, this is quite possibly just a 'delayed' consequence from the earlier bugs. > PS: wal-e's intersperesed output is rather annoying... > I thought it might be relevant. I'll exclude it in the future. Wasn't really related to this bug. More of a general observation that it frequently is a bit verbose... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: