From: | Jukka Holappa <jukkaho(at)mail(dot)student(dot)oulu(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #3595: Segmentation fault with a simple select query |
Date: | 2007-09-11 09:28:19 |
Message-ID: | 46E65FB3.9010508@mail.student.oulu.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Heikki Linnakangas kirjoitti:
> Jukka Holappa wrote:
>> Currently it has some problem with another index for sure as it says:
>> 'ERROR: could not find left sibling in "next_indexing_key"' and when
>> trying to recreate the url table index that was used in the problematic
>> query I reported about, I had some errors like:
>>
>> NOTICE: ALTER TABLE / ADD UNIQUE will create implicit index
>> "unique_urls" for table "urls"
>> ERROR: xlog flush request 3F/1868BB20 is not satisfied --- flushed only
>> to 3F/833AF28
>> CONTEXT: writing block 4018 of relation 1663/46508/79461
>
> The likely cause for that is that the LSN on a data page is corrupted.
> It tried to flush the WAL up to location 3F/1868BB20, but there wasn't
> that much WAL generated.
>
Like I said above quoted parts, the likely cause for this problem was my
own mistake by closing down postgresql the wrong way.
> It starts to sound more and more like a hardware problem to me. You
> mentioned that you have no other software crashes, but I wonder if
> you're running anything else on the server that stresses it in any
> significant way. I'd suggest checking/replacing the RAM for starters,
> that's the most common component to fail, and would cause random
> corruption like that. Or if you have spare hardware, switch to another
> server and see if the problem goes reappears.
>
Of course it can be a hardware problem, but I still don't think so.
However, I can't replicate the original problem at this time and
original broken files (with the original problem from the time before my
feeble debugging attempts) are gone at this point anyway.
I think you can close this bug report down as a bogus one and I'll get
back to you if I have something solid to show later on.
- - Jukka
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG5l+zYYWM2XTSwX0RA4G0AJ4zjTEd8szpOeZJWuh05vPTg4BYiACfV8gk
HoxfbB/GDMvl7JbaHux6X+Y=
=mVVe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albert László-Róbert | 2007-09-11 11:11:02 | Re: hu_HU.UTF8 case insensitive search fail to return values |
Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2007-09-10 17:12:13 | Re: partially effective revoke on pg_catalog |