Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Does the current code cope with the corruption?
> It's not corruption, but "intended degradation". Yes, the current code
> copes with it, that's how GiST survives a crash. However, even with the
> current code, VACUUM will nag if it finds any invalid tuples with this
> (errmsg("index \"%s\" needs VACUUM FULL or REINDEX to finish crash
> That's harmless, in the sense that all scans and inserts work fine, but
> scans might need to do more work than if the invalid tuple wasn't there.
> I don't think we need to go out of our way to support such degraded
> indexes in 9.1. If you see such notices in your logs, you should REINDEX
> anyway, before of after pg_upgrade. Let's just make sure that you get a
> reasonable error message in 9.1 if a scan or insert encounters such a tuple.
> There is a section on this in the docs, BTW:
OK, administrators will be prompted during normal operation --- seems
there is nothing extra for pg_upgrade to do here.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-12-01 02:10:23|
|Subject: Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-12-01 02:03:26|
|Subject: Re: Where are we on Standby Promotion?|