Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-Wznen2nOrUB32LrsuF4uGfDF1s_VZzDjhOYfLKo5H1g8Yw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 3:26 AM PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote: > it turns out one entry in toast index (?) was corrupted: > select md5(body) from zz where id = ...; > ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 4040061139 in > pg_toast_2624976286 > > According to "created_at" column in linked table row was created at > "2021-11-02 13:04:22.192125", i.e. during reindex concurrently. I wonder if it's a coincidence that that number (~4.04 billion) is not that far from 2^32-1 (~4.294 billion). Can you run amcheck? Perhaps the output of the following will be interesting: create extension amcheck; set client_min_messages=debug1; select bt_index_check('pg_toast.pg_toast_2624976286_index', true); (Couldn't hurt to try it, at least.) > I'm wondering if it's known bug and how risky could it be to reindex toast's > indexes. It was done automatically with tool which monitors indexes' bloat > and index size reduced several times in this case. If I had to guess, I'd guess that this is a new and unknown bug. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: