Re: ERROR: could not read block 4707 of relation 1663/16384/16564: Success

I am not sure how big your table is one way we implemented here was we selected the clean rows and outputted it to a csv file. And the rows affected we had to load from the backup, luckily we had the clean backup.

Ex: assume you have 1,2,3,4,5....100 rows and the corrupted is between 60-70. I outputted clean rows from 1-59 and 71-100 to a csv file and loaded in a new table. The corrupted was loaded back from a table. This just One of doing it. There might be more the experts here can answer very well. I am interested to see others answers as well.

My way is time consuming and if you have a very large table or tables affected it's a nightmare to fix them.

Good luck with your recovery.
Thanks
Deepak

On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Deniz Atak <denizatak(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Deepak, Tom thanks for answering.
>
> Tom, we have psql 8.1.18. So you are right, this weird message is because of the old version. I will check with my colleague about the possible reasons. What can I do if there is a messed up table?
>
> Regards,
> Deniz
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Deniz Atak <denizatak(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I am using postgresql on Glassfish server and I have EJB 3.0 for ORM. I am
> > trying to run a query in PSQL but receiving following error:
>
> > Local Exception Stack:
> > Exception [EclipseLink-4002] (Eclipse Persistence Services -
> > 2.0.0.v20091031-r5713): org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException
> > Internal Exception: org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: could not read
> > block 4707 of relation 1663/16384/16564: Success
>
> What Postgres server version is that?
>
> If it's 8.2 or older, this probably indicates a partial block at the end
> of the file. Newer versions produce a more sensible error message for
> the case, but that's just cosmetic --- the real problem is a messed-up
> table. Have you had a filesystem corruption or an out-of-disk-space
> condition on this machine?
>
> regards, tom lane
>