From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mason Hale <masonhale(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Duplicate values found when reindexing unique index |
Date: | 2007-12-31 17:20:15 |
Message-ID: | 1199121615.9558.178.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 11:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It might be worth trawling through both files to check the page headers
> (every 8K) and see which ones agree with expectation and which don't.
> The state of the ...0058 file might be explained by the theory that
> you'd archived it a bit too late (after the first page had been
> overwritten with newer WAL data),
The interlock with .ready and .done should prevent reuse of a file. So
the only way this could happen is if the archive_command queued a
request to copy, rather than performing the copy immediately.
So I was going to say "thats not possible", but perhaps rsync might
become confused by the file renaming mechanism we use?
> but the ...0059 file seems just plain
> broken.
Yeh
> I am starting to wonder about hardware or OS misfeasance
> causing writes to be lost or misdirected.
Agreed
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-31 17:23:54 | Re: Duplicate values found when reindexing unique index |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-31 16:53:54 | Re: Duplicate values found when reindexing unique index |