Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again
Date: 2012-02-21 02:37:19
Message-ID: 25540.1329791839@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Do you know why the mod date on the file is 2012-02-20 12:04?

> Cron was attempt to populate the table once per hour after that problem
> happened.
> And each time it was produced the same error.

That's interesting ... is there any possibility that the insertions were
attempting to insert values that matched a previously-existing primary
key value? I'm thinking there's no reason for the INSERT per se to be
touching nonexistent blocks, but if for some reason the pkey index still
had entries pointing at vanished rows (as it seems to) then the errors
could be coming from uniqueness checks attempting to fetch those rows to
see if they're live.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maxim Boguk 2012-02-21 02:46:13 Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again
Previous Message Maxim Boguk 2012-02-21 01:57:34 Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maxim Boguk 2012-02-21 02:46:13 Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again
Previous Message Maxim Boguk 2012-02-21 01:57:34 Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again