From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: error updating a tuple after promoting a standby |
Date: | 2016-12-21 23:43:14 |
Message-ID: | 6db6a4ef-40e6-9d45-ea5a-6937d400c077@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 12/21/2016 10:06 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
> Is there an index on this table?
>
>
> Have you tried a REINDEX on it?
>
> yes there is an index on id field. I tried REINDEX. Nothing changes but
> I notice now (but perhaps it was like that even before reindexing) that
> every time I issue that UPDATE query, the number of the block it can't
> read increases by one. Now, after some attempts: ERROR: could not read
> block 12289 in file "base/16384/29153": read only 0 of 8192 bytes.
> Unfortunately I don't remember every step as I was focused on completely
> other things... Anyway, in synthesis:
> 1 pg_basebackup on primary and added, to the just created backup pg_xlog
> dir, the needed WAL files according to the .label file (I'm trying
> without archiving) .
If it where me I would use one of the -X methods:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/app-pgbasebackup.html
> A new thing:
> I noticed that, always restarting from the corrupted cluster (without
> reindex I mean), if I update the row id=409 with few data (3 bytes),
> then it works and after that, even updating with that long data works.
To me that looks like an issue with the associated TOAST table. I do not
have a suggestion at this time. Maybe this rings a bell with someone else.
>
> Regards
> Pupillo
>
>
>
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-21 23:56:45 | Re: How well does PostgreSQL 9.6.1 support unicode? |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2016-12-21 23:27:54 | Re: Disabling inheritance with query. |