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

Re: Index corruption

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>
Cc: Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index corruption
Date: 2006-06-30 16:12:11
Message-ID: 24673.1151683931@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> writes:
> It may or may not be the same issue, but for what it's worth, we've seen
>   the same sl_log_1 corruption on AIX 5.1 and 5.3

Hm, on what filesystem, and what PG version(s)?

I'm not completely satisfied by the its-a-kernel-bug theory, because if
it were then ISTM extending an index would be subject to the same risks
as extending a table; but I see no evidence of index page lossage in
Marc's dump.  OTOH the usage patterns are different, so maybe PG isn't
stressing the write-to-lseek path quite as hard for indexes.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Brad NicholsonDate: 2006-06-30 16:18:06
Subject: Re: Index corruption
Previous:From: Brad NicholsonDate: 2006-06-30 16:05:29
Subject: Re: Index corruption

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