From: | Klaus Ita <klaus(at)worstofall(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Maciek Sakrejda <maciek(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #8347: PANIC: heap_insert_redo: failed to add tuple when applying WAL |
Date: | 2013-08-02 07:51:34 |
Message-ID: | CAK9oVJzi12t+fkrmNzJ3kA-TZeBNibFocoBOUevb+-VygCGG+Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Isn't it a funny coincidence, that we also had a corruption of that
same/similar type?
my disk was quite confidently not tampered. I am wondering: Does PG sign,
or checksum wal_files? Is the integrity of wal_files ensured by any
mechanism? Because if it IS, then - in our case - it's a corruption caused
BY the postgres master server. I can replay the wal's and re-create the
same error over and over.
lg,k
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Maciek Sakrejda <maciek(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:
>
>> Any chance you could https://github.com/snaga/xlogdump that and the
>> neighbouring segments? That might tell us whether we're dealing with
>> broken locking or possibly disk corruption (doesn't sound too likely).
>>
>
> Actually, we did find what looks like some pretty crazy disk corruption
> after I reported this (heap tuple data in pg_clog files). I'm surprised
> Postgres did not wig out more, actually. I can run xlogdump later this week
> if it's still of interest, but I'm pretty satisfied that this was not
> Postgres' fault.
>
> Incidentally, the system performed admirably in the course of the
> recovery, considering the severely compromised state of heap and clog data.
> I'm really glad we're using Postgres.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2013-08-02 08:05:19 | Re: BUG #8347: PANIC: heap_insert_redo: failed to add tuple when applying WAL |
Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2013-08-02 07:05:56 | Re: BUG #8352: Using UPPER in ON clause of JOIN |