| From: | Jeremy Finzel <finzelj(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: found xmin from before relfrozenxid on pg_catalog.pg_authid |
| Date: | 2018-03-22 21:24:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAMa1XUj=3gL2+yDRzUJQbcGgsNTTk9=8ZibRwe28Ub23KoJ8aw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Jeremy Finzel <finzelj(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Thank you for the recommendation. I ran both amcheck functions on all 4
> > indexes of those 2 tables with heapallindexed = true, but no issues were
> > found.
>
> Probably wouldn't hurt to run it against all indexes, if you can make
> time for that. If you can generalize from the example query that calls
> the bt_index_check() function, but set
> "heapallindexed=>i.indisprimary" and remove "n.nspname =
> 'pg_catalog'", as well as "LIMIT 10". This will test tables and
> indexes from all schemas, which might be interesting.
> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
I am running this on a san snapshot of our production system. I assume
that this will give me a valid check for file-system-level corruption. I
am going to kick it off and see if I find anything interesting.
Thanks,
Jeremy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alessandro Aste | 2018-03-22 22:29:05 | Re: Postgresql 10.3 , query never completes if LIMIT clause is specified and paralle processing is on |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-03-22 20:20:24 | Re: found xmin from before relfrozenxid on pg_catalog.pg_authid |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-22 21:38:53 | Re: Error detail/hint style fixup |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-03-22 20:53:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |