Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: valiouk(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673
Date: 2009-01-08 18:40:33
Message-ID: 18761.1231440033@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 14:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... I wonder if this is telling us that our patch here was
>> incomplete?
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2006-11/msg00004.php
>>
>> At the time we thought this failure could only occur during _bt_pagedel
>> but you have evidently got a case where a split is failing. It might
>> just be garden-variety index corruption, or it might be a real bug.

> Did you catch this had occurred during recovery?

Yes, I did. Which is one of the reasons I think there might be a real
bug there, but without any evidence to look at it's hard to do much
about it now. (Also, our solution to the underlying problem is quite
different now than it was in 8.1, so I'm doubtful that the bug still
exists in current code even if it's real in 8.1.)

> Can we downgrade the error from PANIC to LOG please?

No, that seems utterly unsafe to me. We'd have a corrupt index and
nothing to cause it to get repaired.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-01-08 19:15:45 Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2009-01-08 18:16:17 Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673