From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FSM corruption leading to errors |
Date: | 2016-10-21 20:17:11 |
Message-ID: | 56ea6b2f-cad2-56ce-5785-c6415c422e34@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/20/16 10:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 2) If anything is found, stop the server and delete the files manually.
> 3) Re-start the server.
> OK, that's troublesome and costly for large relations, but we know
> that's the safest way to go for any versions, and there is no need to
> complicate the code with any one-time repairing extensions.
Wouldn't you need to run around to all your replicas and do that as well?
> Speaking of which, I implemented a small extension able to truncate
> the FSM up to the size of the relation as attached, but as I looked at
> it SMGR_TRUNCATE_FSM has been introduced in 9.6 so its range of action
> is rather limited... And I pushed as well a version on github:
> https://github.com/michaelpq/pg_plugins/tree/master/pg_fix_truncation
> The limitation range of such an extension is a argument good enough to
> just rely on the stop/delete-FSM/start method to fix an instance and
> let VACUUM do the rest of the work. That looks to work but use it at
> your own risk.
Shouldn't the truncation be logged before it's performed?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-10-21 20:30:39 | Re: Remove autovacuum GUC? |
Previous Message | Sven R. Kunze | 2016-10-21 19:48:33 | Re: Indirect indexes |