Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 21084.1329787921@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again (Maxim Boguk <maxim.boguk@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again
Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again |
Список | pgsql-general |
Maxim Boguk <maxim.boguk@gmail.com> writes: > One of servers under my support 2 days ago produced the next error: > ERROR: could not read block 135 in file "base/16404/118881486": read only > 0 of 8192 bytes > ... > What I see in file system: > hh=# SELECT relfilenode from pg_class where relname='agency_statistics_old'; > relfilenode > ------------- > 118881486 > postgres@db10:~/tmp$ ls -la > /var/lib/postgresql/9.0/main/base/16404/118881486 > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 0 2012-02-20 12:04 > /var/lib/postgresql/9.0/main/base/16404/118881486 > So table file size zero bytes (seems autovacuum truncated that table to 0 > bytes). Hmmm .... something did, but I see no clear evidence that it was autovacuum. Do you know why the mod date on the file is 2012-02-20 12:04? That's more than two days after the error in your logs, so it's not clear to me that the current state of the file tells us much about what happened on the 17th. If autovacuum had truncated the table then, and the table wasn't touched otherwise, the file mod date shouldn't have increased. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: