Re: "invalid page header in block 597621 of relation..."error

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Adam Witney <awitney(at)sgul(dot)ac(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "invalid page header in block 597621 of relation..."error
Date: 2005-11-24 15:52:29
Message-ID: 14014.1132847549@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Adam Witney <awitney(at)sgul(dot)ac(dot)uk> writes:
> bugasbase2=# vacuum;
> WARNING: relation "mba_data_base" page 597621 is uninitialized --- fixing

This is the expected result of what you did.

> WARNING: relation "mba_data_base" page 640793 is uninitialized --- fixing
> WARNING: relation "mba_data_base" page 640794 is uninitialized --- fixing
> WARNING: relation "mba_data_base" page 640795 is uninitialized --- fixing
> WARNING: relation "mba_data_base" page 640796 is uninitialized --- fixing
> WARNING: relation "mba_data_base" page 640797 is uninitialized --- fixing
> WARNING: relation "mba_data_base" page 640798 is uninitialized --- fixing

That's a bit odd. There are scenarios where all-zero pages can
legitimately appear in a PG file --- specifically, if PG extends
the table and the OS completes that task, but then there's a crash
before PG gets to write any data into the new page. Conceivably a
crash during a bulk data load process could result in half a dozen
such pages together, but it seems improbable. Try looking at the
data on the preceding and following pages --- does it look like there's
something missing?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adam Witney 2005-11-24 15:54:25 Re: "invalid page header in block 597621 of relation..."error
Previous Message Berend Tober 2005-11-24 15:44:19 Function name variable within a non-trigger function