From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Dan Gorman" <dgorman(at)hi5(dot)com>, "Koichi Suzuki" <suzuki(dot)koichi(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Toru SHIMOGAKI" <shimogaki(dot)toru(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PITR Backups |
Date: | 2007-06-25 17:10:45 |
Message-ID: | 974.1182791445@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Reformatting and sorting, we have
>>
>> WARNING: page 28900 of relation 1663/16384/76718 was uninitialized
>> WARNING: page 28902 of relation 1663/16384/76718 was uninitialized
>> WARNING: page 26706 of relation 1663/16384/76719 was uninitialized
>> WARNING: page 26708 of relation 1663/16384/76719 was uninitialized
> Those two are interesting because we appear to have two valid pages in
> the middle of some uninitialized ones. That implies were not looking at
> an unapplied truncation.
Not necessarily --- it's possible the WAL sequence simply didn't touch
those pages.
Your suggestion to rerun the recovery with higher log_min_messages
is a good one, because that way we'd get some detail about what the
WAL records that touched the pages were. I think DEBUG1 would be
sufficient for that, though, and DEBUG2 might be pretty durn verbose.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dan Gorman | 2007-06-25 17:10:55 | Re: PITR Backups |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-06-25 17:07:24 | Re: PITR Backups |