Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTik9ds9+a=JROSvEvqD5LK0tST7LnYvtgBnuOVQb@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13 (Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil.sontakke@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil.sontakke@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure, but I doubt it. If the VACUUM FULL committed, then the >> WAL records should be on disk, but if the immediate shutdown happened >> while it was still running, then the WAL records might still be in >> wal_buffers, in which case I don't think they'll get written out and >> thus zero pages in the index are to be expected. >>... > > Oh yeah, so if VF committed, the xlog should have been ok too, but > can't say the same about the shared buffers. But there was a later block that *was* written out. What was the LSN on that block? everything in the WAL log should have been fsynced up to that point when that buffer was flushed. Was there a machine restart in the picture as well? -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: