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

Re: Index corruption

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index corruption
Date: 2006-06-30 14:04:38
Message-ID: 23465.1151676278@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I trawled through the first, larger dump you sent me, and found multiple
index entries pointing to quite a few heap tuples:

	Occurrences	block	item

	2		43961	1
	2		43961	2
	2		43961	3
	2		43961	4
	2		43961	5
	2		43961	6
	2		43961	7
	2		43961	8
	2		43961	9
	2		119695	1
	2		119695	2
	2		119695	3
	2		126029	1
	2		126029	2
	2		126029	3
	2		166694	1
	2		166865	1
	2		166865	2
	2		166865	3
	2		166865	4
	2		166865	5
	2		166865	6
	2		166865	7
	2		206221	1
	2		247123	1
	2		327775	1
	2		327775	2
	2		327775	3
	2		327775	4
	2		327775	5
	2		327775	6
	2		327775	7
	2		327775	8
	2		327775	9
	2		327775	10
	2		327775	11

Both indexes show identical sets of duplicates, which makes it pretty
hard to credit that it's a within-index problem.

You mentioned that the test had been allowed to run for a good while
after the first slave error was noted.  So it seems there's no question
that we are looking at some mechanism that allows the first few entries
on a heap page to be lost and overwritten :-(, and that this happened
several times over the course of the larger run.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jan WieckDate: 2006-06-30 14:44:07
Subject: Re: Index corruption
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-30 13:55:54
Subject: Re: Index corruption

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