From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Olivier Macchioni <olivier(dot)macchioni(at)wingo(dot)ch>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
Date: | 2014-05-16 12:03:03 |
Message-ID: | 20140516120303.GC28158@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2014-05-16 12:58:57 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > One of the arguments against Bruce's proposal to print a warning at hash
> > index creation is that it's a particularly ineffective form of
> > deprecation. In your example, since the hash index was created by some
> > app not manually, I'll bet nobody would have seen/noticed the warning
> > even if there had been one.
>
> I suggested we make a GUC allow_unrecoverable_indexes and default it
> to false. If you want to create hash indexes you need to set it to
> true or else you just get errors.
Fine with me.
> A more general solution is to emit a WAL record the first time a
> non-crashsafe index is touched after a checkpoint. On a slave that
> record could just mark the index invalid.
Not trivially no. Recovery can't write to the catalog.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-16 13:45:02 | Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2014-05-16 11:58:57 | Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |