Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Date: 2014-09-10 21:13:51
Message-ID: 20140910211351.GE21173@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:07:36PM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:07:43AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Here is a patch which implements the warning during CREATE INDEX ...
> >> HASH. If WAL-logging of hash indexes is ever implemented, we can remove
> >> this warning.
> >
> > Applied, though I used the term "streaming standbys" to match our docs.
>
> Hmm. The wording of the warning doesn't seem to really indicate
> the full scope of the limitation. Any a standby (warm or hot)
> maintained by WAL file copying would also be affected (i.e.,
> streaming replication as the WAL delivery mechanism is irrelevant),
> and you also have problems after a database crash or PANIC. I'm
> not sure how to state that concisely, though.

I am open to improved wording. :-)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vik Fearing 2014-09-10 21:43:30 Re: [BUGS] BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2014-09-10 21:07:36 Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes