| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Data corruption issues using streaming replication on 9.0.14/9.2.5/9.3.1 |
| Date: | 2013-11-20 13:59:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1384955998.30844.YahooMailNeo@web162905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2013-11-20 05:30:39 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Wouldn't a database VACUUM FREEZE fix it, with WAL-logged
>> writing of everything that doesn't yet have hint bits set?
>
> Besides also being pretty expensive it still wouldn't correct the
> clog - and we don't always rely on hint bits.
I'm talking about after a fix is deployed, fixing up the possible
corruption. Can you explain where VACUUM FREEZE would not suffice?
I don't know of anywhere that we have hint bits set for a tuple and
we go fetch the clog bits in spite of that. I don't understand
where that would make sense; especially since I thought that a
database FREEZE followed by a checkpoint releases old clog space
anyway.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-11-20 14:07:26 | Re: Data corruption issues using streaming replication on 9.0.14/9.2.5/9.3.1 |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2013-11-20 13:59:57 | ECPG infrastructure changes, part 3, was: Re: ECPG fixes |