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

Re: Unexpected chunk number

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chris Purcell <chris(dot)purcell(dot)39(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Sunir Shah <sunir(at)sunir(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unexpected chunk number
Date: 2006-09-12 20:44:16
Message-ID: 21404.1158093856@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Chris Purcell <chris(dot)purcell(dot)39(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> That will get you past the reported problem, but I wonder what other
>> corruption is lurking ... once you've managed to pg_dump you'd better
>> inspect the data very carefully.

> Would the best advice be to get a pg_dump, then drop the database  
> entirely and rebuild it?

Definitely.  It's entirely possible for pg_dump to dump successfully
from a database that still contains corruption.  An example:
broken indexes on user tables.  COPY just does a seqscan and never looks
at the contents of indexes ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Chris PurcellDate: 2006-09-12 21:15:03
Subject: Re: Unexpected chunk number
Previous:From: vodhnerDate: 2006-09-12 18:23:03
Subject: pgsql on Solaris 10

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