Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
От | Olivier Macchioni |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4FB93C6A-2790-4167-931A-E53E6694F73E@wingo.ch обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On May 15, 2014, at 21:07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:20:35PM +0200, Olivier Macchioni wrote: >>> I guess my best bet is to replace it by another kind of indexes... = and maybe one day PostgreSQL will be clever enough to issue a warning / = error in such a case for the people like me who don't read *all the doc* = :P >=20 >> Yes, streaming replication has made our hash indexes even worse. In = the >> past, I have suggested we issue a warning for the creation of hash >> indexes, but did not get enough agreement. >=20 > Mainly because it wouldn't be a very helpful message. >=20 > I wonder though if we could throw a flat-out error for attempts to use > a hash index on a hot standby server. That would get people's = attention > without being mere nagging in other situations. It's not a 100% = solution > because you'd still lose if you tried to use a hash index on a slave > since promoted to master. But it would help without being a large > sink for effort. >=20 > regards, tom lane I am not aware of the technical implementation hurdles, but in this case = any of the following behaviors would have been better for me: - still perform the query, without using the index (preferably issuing a = warning of some kind) - Tom's solution - refuse to perform the query, with a clear error = message (looking at the error, I thought I had a broken replication, = it's clearly not a nice message to have) - (possibly replace on-the-fly any hash index by another kind of indexes = on the slave when setting up the replication or creating the index on = the master? does this even make sense?) - somehow disallow to setup of streaming replication when there is a = hash index in any DB / and refuse the creation of a hash index on a = master server, so we don't reach this situation - I assume there is a usage for hash indexes and we don't simply want to = deprecate them Olivier=
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: