| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: prion failed with ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 14334 in pg_toast_2619 |
| Date: | 2021-05-16 22:42:53 |
| Message-ID: | 2601445.1621204973@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-05-16 18:21:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, yeah. I'm not sure if transferring the value forward from the
>> old cluster is entirely safe, but if it is, that seems like a
>> promising route to a fix. (We should still have more sanity checking
>> around the GlobalVis code, though.)
> Why would it not be safe?
I'm just wondering about the catalog tuples set up by pg_upgrade
itself. If they're all frozen then they probably don't matter to
this, but it might take some thought.
> I think we should remove the heuristic thing from pg_resetwal entirely,
> and error out if next-xid is set to something too far away from oldest
> xid, unless oldexid is also specified.
Seems plausible ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-05-16 23:28:33 | Re: prion failed with ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 14334 in pg_toast_2619 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-05-16 22:35:13 | Re: prion failed with ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 14334 in pg_toast_2619 |