On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> On 01.12.2010 04:10, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Does the current code cope with the corruption?
>>> It's not corruption, but "intended degradation". Yes, the current code
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.
> You'll get an error if a scan encounters an invalid tuple.
> In the patch I posted, I just ripped out everything related to invalid
> tuples altogether. But we should add a check and ereport for that before
All right, that seems like a reasonable backstop, if we're fairly sure
this won't be a common scenario.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Rob Wultsch||Date: 2010-12-01 14:37:22|
|Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-12-01 14:27:21|
|Subject: Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child |