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

Re: Index corruption

From: Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index corruption
Date: 2006-06-30 16:18:06
Message-ID: 44A54EBE.6020100@ca.afilias.info (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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

jfs2 in all cases.  I don't recall the PG version for 5.1, but it was
greater that 7.4.8.  For 5.3, it was 7.4.12.

-- 
Brad Nicholson  416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-30 16:22:33
Subject: Re: Index corruption
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-30 16:12:11
Subject: Re: Index corruption

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