On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No, that seems utterly unsafe to me. We'd have a corrupt index and
> >> nothing to cause it to get repaired.
> > We do exactly this with GIN and GIST indexes currently.
> Which are not used in any system indexes.
> > I'd rather have a database that works, but has a corrupt index than one
> > that won't come up at all.
> If the btree in question is a critical system index, your value of
> "work" is going to be pretty damn small.
Those are good points.
So if its a system index we can throw a PANIC, else just LOG. Whilst a
corrupt index is annoying in the extreme, a total server outage is not
something we should allow. IMHO.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-01-08 20:04:45|
|Subject: Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673 |
|Previous:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2009-01-08 19:31:13|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work|