Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Index corruption

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index corruption
Date: 2006-06-29 21:37:53
Message-ID: 1151617073.2845.6.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2006-06-29 kell 17:23, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom,
> > we have a newer and much smaller (35M) file showing the same thing:
> 
> Thanks.  Looking into this, what I find is that *both* indexes have
> duplicated entries for the same heap tuple:
> 
...
> However, the two entries in idx1 contain different data!!
> 
> What I speculate right at the moment is that we are not looking at index
> corruption at all, but at heap corruption: somehow, the first insertion
> into ctid (27806,2) got lost and the same ctid got re-used for the next
> inserted row.  We fixed one bug like this before ...

Marc: do you have triggers on some replicated tables ?

I remember having some corruption in a database with weird circular
trigger structures, some of them being slony log triggers. 

The thing that seemed to mess up something inside there, was when change
on parent rownt fired a trigger that changes child table rows and there
rows fired another trigger that changed the same parent row again.

-- 
----------------
Hannu Krosing
Database Architect
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia

Skype me:  callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free:  http://www.skype.com



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-29 22:01:08
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-06-29 21:37:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group