| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | valiouk(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673 |
| Date: | 2009-01-08 19:38:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1231443486.18005.282.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No, that seems utterly unsafe to me. We'd have a corrupt index and
> >> nothing to cause it to get repaired.
>
> > We do exactly this with GIN and GIST indexes currently.
>
> Which are not used in any system indexes.
>
> > I'd rather have a database that works, but has a corrupt index than one
> > that won't come up at all.
>
> If the btree in question is a critical system index, your value of
> "work" is going to be pretty damn small.
Those are good points.
So if its a system index we can throw a PANIC, else just LOG. Whilst a
corrupt index is annoying in the extreme, a total server outage is not
something we should allow. IMHO.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-08 20:04:45 | Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673 |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2009-01-08 19:31:13 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work |