Re: Index corruption

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>
Cc: Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index corruption
Date: 2006-06-30 16:12:11
Message-ID: 24673.1151683931@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> writes:
> It may or may not be the same issue, but for what it's worth, we've seen
> the same sl_log_1 corruption on AIX 5.1 and 5.3

Hm, on what filesystem, and what PG version(s)?

I'm not completely satisfied by the its-a-kernel-bug theory, because if
it were then ISTM extending an index would be subject to the same risks
as extending a table; but I see no evidence of index page lossage in
Marc's dump. OTOH the usage patterns are different, so maybe PG isn't
stressing the write-to-lseek path quite as hard for indexes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brad Nicholson 2006-06-30 16:18:06 Re: Index corruption
Previous Message Brad Nicholson 2006-06-30 16:05:29 Re: Index corruption