From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | John Lister <john(dot)lister-ps(at)kickstone(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Database corruption help |
Date: | 2009-02-25 17:42:31 |
Message-ID: | 2e78013d0902250942u7d6103fev96e3b6d4eb20e5b8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> The only other corruption mechanism I can think of is that pg_clog might
> contain commit bits for some logically inconsistent set of transaction
> numbers, due to some pages of pg_clog having made it to disk and others
> not. That could result in some of the intermediate tuples in the chain
> not being seen as dead --- but that's not what we see here either.
>
Or can it be otherwise where some transactions which in fact
committed, are marked as aborted because of clog corruption ? In that
case, some of the intermediate tuples in the HOT chain may get removed
(because we handle aborted heap-only tuples separately) and break the
HOT chain.
I am also looking at the pruning logic to see if I can spot something unusual.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Steben | 2009-02-25 19:31:07 | Re: recovery question |
Previous Message | Lee Azzarello | 2009-02-25 15:40:02 | Re: recovery question |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-02-25 17:42:38 | Re: MSVC buildfarm members are all unhappy |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-25 17:39:15 | Re: MSVC buildfarm members are all unhappy |