| From: | Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index corruption |
| Date: | 2006-06-30 16:18:06 |
| Message-ID: | 44A54EBE.6020100@ca.afilias.info |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
jfs2 in all cases. I don't recall the PG version for 5.1, but it was
greater that 7.4.8. For 5.3, it was 7.4.12.
--
Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-30 16:22:33 | Re: Index corruption |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-30 16:12:11 | Re: Index corruption |