Re: corruption issue after server crash - ERROR: unexpected chunk number 0

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: corruption issue after server crash - ERROR: unexpected chunk number 0
Date: 2013-11-22 02:41:21
Message-ID: CAOR=d=1R9Wk_LSG0aY+VB9+oMKY7mgbDxJ5KoU5uQ48e2b0nPw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2013 2:51 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> That leaves three possibilities:
>> (1) fsync doesn't actually guarantee persistence in your stack.
>
>
> I'll put my $5 on (1).... virtualization stacks add way too much ooga-booga
> to the storage stack, and tend to play fast and loose with write buffering
> to maintain some semblence of performance.

If you really hate your database, be sure and include an NFS mount at
the vm image level in there somewhere.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-11-22 03:06:22 Re: Does LC_CTYPE affect performance, index use?
Previous Message Joe Van Dyk 2013-11-22 02:14:26 Re: Changing function from SECURITY DEFINER to SECURITY INVOKER changes query plan?