From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
Date: | 2015-03-24 11:35:28 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRTGoN5WjgLvW4r58=RntreafEOXHOEbMxhtq94rEmYKQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> I was attempting to set up a data set to test pg_rewind, when I encountered
> an error. I created a primary and standby, then:
>
> [...]
>
> # insert into utest (thing) values ('moomoo');
> ERROR: index "utest_pkey" contains unexpected zero page at block 0
> HINT: Please REINDEX it.
>
> This is built on commit e5f455f59fed0632371cddacddd79895b148dc07.
Unlogged tables are not in WAL, and cannot be accessed while in
recovery, so having an empty index relation is expected on a promoted
standby IMO. Now perhaps we could have a more friendly error message
in _bt_checkpage(), _hash_checkpage() and gistcheckpage() with an
additional HINT to mention unlogged tables, but I am not sure that
this is much worth it. Mentioning this behavior in the docs would be
good instead.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-03-24 11:36:19 | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |
Previous Message | Shigeru HANADA | 2015-03-24 10:35:58 | Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API) |