From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Tim Perdue" <tperdue(at)valinux(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: AW: more corruption |
Date: | 2000-07-11 02:32:33 |
Message-ID: | 000f01bfeae0$44a06740$2801007e@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >>>> I vacuumed here and it worked. I did not use my "old" pg_log
> file - what
> >>>> did I lose?
> >>
> >> Hard to tell. Any tuples that weren't already marked on disk as "known
> >> committed" have probably gone missing, because their originating
> >> transaction IDs likely won't be shown as committed in the new pg_log.
> >> So I'd look for missing tuples from recent transactions in the old DB.
> >>
>
> > Hmm,this may be more serious.
> > MVCC doesn't see committed(marked HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED) but
> > not yet committed(t_xmin > CurrentTransactionId) tuples.
> > He will see them in the future.
>
> But he did a vacuum --- won't that get rid of any tuples that aren't
> currently considered committed?
>
Oops,did he move old pg_varibale ?
If so my anxiety has no meaning.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-07-11 02:33:21 | RE: postgres 7.2 features. |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-07-11 02:30:14 | Re: Distribution making |