On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> Does the current code cope with the corruption?
> It's not corruption, but "intended degradation". Yes, the current code copes
> with it, that's how GiST survives a crash. However, even with the current
> code, VACUUM will nag if it finds any invalid tuples with this message:
> (errmsg("index \"%s\" needs VACUUM FULL or REINDEX to finish crash
> That's harmless, in the sense that all scans and inserts work fine, but
> scans might need to do more work than if the invalid tuple wasn't there.
> I don't think we need to go out of our way to support such degraded indexes
> in 9.1. If you see such notices in your logs, you should REINDEX anyway,
> before of after pg_upgrade. Let's just make sure that you get a reasonable
> error message in 9.1 if a scan or insert encounters such a tuple.
I just don't want to take a risk of giving people unexpected wrong
answers. It's not clear to me whether that's a risk here or not.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-12-01 02:55:58|
|Subject: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-12-01 02:06:13|
|Subject: Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite|