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

From: Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 03:25:41
Message-ID: CAK-MWwQMcqPhxA9wrCtKF=c-8HATcaDc6Y=VR8zNbqHBb00otA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> There isn't possibility but close to 100% new inserted values were matched
> a previously-existing primary
> key value.
> The table is hand-made 'materialyzed view'-type statistic table which is
> getting recalculated via cron.
>
>
To be clear - the new inserted values do match a previously-existing
primary key values almost always.
Sorry for not being clear.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-02-21 04:01:33 Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again
Previous Message Rob Sargentg 2012-02-21 03:04:51 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 Fujii Masao 2012-02-21 03:59:27 Re: Displaying accumulated autovacuum cost
Previous Message Rob Sargentg 2012-02-21 03:04:51 Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again