| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Guerin <guerin(at)rentec(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Database corruption. |
| Date: | 2007-02-08 00:52:12 |
| Message-ID: | 21669.1170895932@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Michael Guerin <guerin(at)rentec(dot)com> writes:
> Also, all files in pg_clog are sequential with the last file being 0135.
Hmm, that makes it sound like a plain old data-corruption problem, ie,
trashed xmin or xmax in some tuple header. Can you do a "select
count(*)" from this table without getting the error?
>> PostgreSQL 8.1RC1 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc
>> (GCC) 4.0.1
[ raised eyebrow... ] You're keeping important data in an RC version
that you've not updated for more than a year? Your faith in Postgres'
code quality is touching, but I'd counsel getting onto a more recent
release.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | rob_spellberg | 2007-02-08 01:09:26 | Re: a request for the 8.1.7 and 8.2.2 tarballs and the good reasons why |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-08 00:40:50 | Re: a request for the 8.1.7 and 8.2.2 tarballs and the good reasons why |