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

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
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" for split pages 1606/1673
Date: 2009-01-08 19:19:37
Message-ID: 20118.1231442377@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
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.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2009-01-08 19:31:13
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-01-08 19:15:45
Subject: Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" forsplit pages 1606/1673

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