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 whole 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:

In response to


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 © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group