From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas F(dot)O'Connell" <tfo(at)monsterlabs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: clarifying a few error messages |
Date: | 2003-01-13 22:30:12 |
Message-ID: | 6535.1042497012@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Thomas F.O'Connell" <tfo(at)monsterlabs(dot)com> writes:
> As for the bad data on disk, I've got a backup, but how severe are we
> talking? By not trusting it, do you mean that it could be flagrantly
> wrong (i.e., truly corrupted; bad data), or just out of sync with
> whatever writes were last occurring?
The high clog numbers you were quoting suggest completely-trashed
transaction ID fields (I'm assuming that the files actually present in
pg_clog have numbers nowhere near that). I've only seen that happen in
the context of completely-trashed disk pages. You could possibly do
some investigation for yourself using pg_filedump.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-13 23:04:36 | Re: PostgreSQL on Windows |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-13 21:01:10 | Re: GUC/postgresql.conf docs |