| From: | Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index corruption |
| Date: | 2006-06-30 22:02:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1151704966.3913.128.camel@bloodnok.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 21:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> One easy thing that would be worth trying is to build with
> --enable-cassert and see if any Asserts get provoked during the
> A couple other things to try, given that you can provoke the failure
> fairly easily:
> . . .
> 1. In studying the code, it bothers me a bit that P_NEW is the same as
> InvalidBlockNumber. The intended uses of P_NEW appear to be adequately
> . . .
> 2. I'm also eyeing this bit of code in hio.c:
>
> If someone else has just extended the relation, it's possible that this
> will allow a process to get to the page before the intended extender has
> . . .
We tried all of these suggestions and still get the problem. Nothing
interesting in the log file so I guess the Asserts did not fire.
We are going to try experimenting with different kernels now. Unless
anyone has any other suggestions.
__
Marc
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-01 03:20:28 | Re: Index corruption |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2006-06-30 21:29:25 | [RFC] txid: module for 64-bit external transaction IDs |