| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, mayank(dot)mittal(dot)1982(at)hotmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
| Date: | 2012-09-20 22:18:12 |
| Message-ID: | 16858.1348179492@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:38:52 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sure, but what about the heap? The case I was speculating about was
>> that the heap had been truncated, but because of the corruption problem,
>> the index still had heap pointers in it. We don't know what file 16585
>> is supposed to be.
> Wouldn't the truncation have created a completely new index relation?
If it were an actual TRUNCATE, yeah. But it could be a case of VACUUM
truncating a now-empty table to zero blocks.
But nothing like this would explain the OP's report that corruption is
completely reproducible for him. So I like your theory about hash index
use better. We really oughta get some WAL support in there.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mayank Mittal | 2012-09-21 07:01:00 | Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-09-20 22:10:35 | Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |