RE: AW: more corruption

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Tim Perdue" <tperdue(at)valinux(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org>
Subject: RE: AW: more corruption
Date: 2000-07-11 02:32:33
Message-ID: 000f01bfeae0$44a06740$2801007e@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >>>> I vacuumed here and it worked. I did not use my "old" pg_log
> file - what
> >>>> did I lose?
> >>
> >> Hard to tell. Any tuples that weren't already marked on disk as "known
> >> committed" have probably gone missing, because their originating
> >> transaction IDs likely won't be shown as committed in the new pg_log.
> >> So I'd look for missing tuples from recent transactions in the old DB.
> >>
>
> > Hmm,this may be more serious.
> > MVCC doesn't see committed(marked HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED) but
> > not yet committed(t_xmin > CurrentTransactionId) tuples.
> > He will see them in the future.
>
> But he did a vacuum --- won't that get rid of any tuples that aren't
> currently considered committed?
>

Oops,did he move old pg_varibale ?
If so my anxiety has no meaning.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2000-07-11 02:33:21 RE: postgres 7.2 features.
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2000-07-11 02:30:14 Re: Distribution making