Re: ERROR: invalid page in block 1226710 of relation base/16750/27244

From: bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ERROR: invalid page in block 1226710 of relation base/16750/27244
Date: 2015-10-22 16:25:36
Message-ID: CAGrpgQ_Gzm7sZTRJpRbtB=eA_rSk9qGbE6d8ukORwyO-OeNXrA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > What would have happened to the WAL-shipping-only standby if the WALs
> were
> > all applied? Would it have it balked at applying a WAL containing bad
> data
> > from the master, or would it have applied the WAL and continued on? For
> the
> > latter, would physical corruption on the master even transfer via WAL?
>
> Hard to tell. I'd have guessed that corruption that made a page
> unreadable would not transfer across WAL (streaming or otherwise), because
> the master could not have read it in to apply an update to it. However,
> we don't know the exact sequence of events here; there may have more than
> one step on the way to disaster.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

I would have liked to have had the opportunity to answer those questions
myself but alas, in the heat of the moment some of the data useful for
forensics was lost.

Thanks again!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karsten Hilbert 2015-10-22 16:37:05 Re: ID column naming convention
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-10-22 16:15:56 Re: ERROR: invalid page in block 1226710 of relation base/16750/27244