Re: BUG #17245: Index corruption involving deduplicated entries
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17245: Index corruption involving deduplicated entries |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20211028224831.bj7ew3j74tw4cmvh@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17245: Index corruption involving deduplicated entries (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17245: Index corruption involving deduplicated entries
Re: BUG #17245: Index corruption involving deduplicated entries |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Hi, On 2021-10-28 15:23:38 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Anything is possible. But Kamigishi Rei has said that this database > has never had a hard crash or unclean shut down, which I definitely > believe. Also, they are using ECC on a Xeon processor. This is the > kind of hardware that is generally assumed to be very reliable. That wouldn't protect against e.g. a logic bug in ZFS. Given its copy-on-write nature corruption could very well manifest as seeing an older version of the data when re-reading data from disk. Which could very well lead to the type of corruption we're seeing here. A few years back I tried to help somebody investigate corruption that turned out to be caused by something roughly along those lines (IIRC several bugs in ZFS on linux, although I don't remember the details anymore). Not saying that that is the most likely explanation, just something worth checking. > Kamigishi Rei has been an exemplary example of how to report a bug to > an open source community. I want to thank him again. Thanks! +1 > A second similar complaint from Herman Verschooten on Slack didn't > mention ZFS at all. A third similar-seeming report on Slack was from > somebody named Brandon Ros, who used Ubuntu (I believe 20.04, like > Herman Verschooten). Also no indication that ZFS was used. > > I find it slightly hard to believe that it's ZFS, simply because all 3 > complaints involve Postgres 14. And have a lot of common factors. For > example, Herman also used foreign keys -- a lot of users never bother > with them. And like Kamigishi Rei, Herman found that a REINDEX (or was > it VACUUM FULL?) seemingly made the problem go away. Didn't 14 change the logic when index vacuums are done? That could cause previously existing issues to manifest with a higher likelihood. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: