| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 20:04:45 |
| Message-ID: | 26683.1231445085@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If the btree in question is a critical system index, your value of
>> "work" is going to be pretty damn small.
> 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.
I think an appropriate solution would be to institute some mechanism
that forces a reindex of the corrupted index at completion of recovery.
Merely fooling around with message severity levels doesn't fix anything
at all, it just opens the door to more trouble than you've already got.
Whether this is important enough to get done in the near future is
a different discussion...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-08 20:09:54 | Re: BUG #4494: Memory leak in pg_regress.c |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-08 19:38:06 | Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673 |