| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "Kenneth Marshall" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Preventing index scans for non-recoverable index AMs |
| Date: | 2008-12-18 12:18:34 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0812180418n37cf4f81l77c9b331cdc6465d@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Right, this is certainly not a new problem. It's not even a new problem in
> the context of replication or hot standby, because we already have the
> problem with PITR and file-based log shipping.
>
> Also, it's not just a problem *during* the recovery. The index is just as
> corrupt after the recovery has finished.
>
Just curious, how do we handle the case of corrupted hash index today
? If we can detect that the index is corrupt because of bad page
headers etc, then its still OK; we can throw an error. But what if the
hash index is used after recovery and it returns wrong tuple(s) ?
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-12-18 12:32:03 | Re: Preventing index scans for non-recoverable index AMs |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-12-18 12:16:40 | Re: Preventing index scans for non-recoverable index AMs |