| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <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: | 2014-09-10 21:13:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20140910211351.GE21173@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:07:36PM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:07:43AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Here is a patch which implements the warning during CREATE INDEX ...
> >> HASH. If WAL-logging of hash indexes is ever implemented, we can remove
> >> this warning.
> >
> > Applied, though I used the term "streaming standbys" to match our docs.
>
> Hmm. The wording of the warning doesn't seem to really indicate
> the full scope of the limitation. Any a standby (warm or hot)
> maintained by WAL file copying would also be affected (i.e.,
> streaming replication as the WAL delivery mechanism is irrelevant),
> and you also have problems after a database crash or PANIC. I'm
> not sure how to state that concisely, though.
I am open to improved wording. :-)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2014-09-10 21:43:30 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax. |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-09-10 21:07:36 | Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |