From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>,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 11:37:32 |
Message-ID: | CC97DD51-AF19-4819-BFDA-58EEDCF717BA@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On March 24, 2015 12:35:28 PM GMT+01:00, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>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.
I think Thom's point is that he promoted the node...
Thom, are you sure this want transient?
Andres
---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2015-03-24 11:46:39 | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-03-24 11:36:19 | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |