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

Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" forsplit pages 1606/1673

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: valiouk(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" forsplit pages 1606/1673
Date: 2009-01-08 19:38:06
Message-ID: 1231443486.18005.282.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
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

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 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 InoueDate: 2009-01-08 19:31:13
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work

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