| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> | 
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: How am I supposed to fix this? | 
| Date: | 2019-08-06 18:16:44 | 
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzkz-kEKnY0MP1T2LdJtbDzf0q65TW=SPcOhN-=L7euBCA@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:11 AM Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> wrote:
> As a followup, btcheck found another index that had issues, and a toast
> table was missing a chunk.
>
> I have ALL the data I used to create this table still around so I just
> dropped it and am reloading the data.
It sounds like there is a generic storage issue at play here. Often
TOAST data is the apparent first thing that gets corrupted, because
that's only because the inconsistencies are relatively obvious.
I suggest that you rerun amcheck using the same query, though this
time specify "heapallindexed=true" to bt_check_index(). Increase
maintenance_work_mem if it's set to a low value first (ideally you can
crank it up to 600MB). This type of verification will take a lot
longer, but will find more subtle inconsistencies that could easily be
missed.
Please let us know how this goes. I am always keen to hear about how
much the tooling helps in the real world.
-- 
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2019-08-06 18:18:41 | Re: intarray GiST index gets wrong answers for '{}' <@ anything | 
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2019-08-06 18:11:14 | Re: How am I supposed to fix this? |