| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Orphan page in _bt_split |
| Date: | 2025-09-04 00:39:11 |
| Message-ID: | aLjfr9RPqKYu0mVI@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 09:32:41AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> On 01/09/2025 10:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> Also rethinking this aspect: a checksum failure probably *isn't* going
>> to make much difference. Since that'll also cause bigger problems for
>> VACUUM than logging one of these "failed to re-find parent key"
>> messages.
>
> But vacuum is not just logging this message. It throws error which means
> that vacuum for this relation will be performed any more.
Yeah. For a long-running autovacuum job, getting potentially random
in-flight failures is always annoying, more if these jobs deal with
wraparound.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-09-04 00:39:43 | Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-09-04 00:28:24 | Re: index prefetching |