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
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 |