From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
---|---|
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: | 2006-06-29 21:37:53 |
Message-ID: | 1151617073.2845.6.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2006-06-29 kell 17:23, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom,
> > we have a newer and much smaller (35M) file showing the same thing:
>
> Thanks. Looking into this, what I find is that *both* indexes have
> duplicated entries for the same heap tuple:
>
...
> However, the two entries in idx1 contain different data!!
>
> What I speculate right at the moment is that we are not looking at index
> corruption at all, but at heap corruption: somehow, the first insertion
> into ctid (27806,2) got lost and the same ctid got re-used for the next
> inserted row. We fixed one bug like this before ...
Marc: do you have triggers on some replicated tables ?
I remember having some corruption in a database with weird circular
trigger structures, some of them being slony log triggers.
The thing that seemed to mess up something inside there, was when change
on parent rownt fired a trigger that changes child table rows and there
rows fired another trigger that changed the same parent row again.
--
----------------
Hannu Krosing
Database Architect
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia
Skype me: callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-29 22:01:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-06-29 21:37:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |