Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673 - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673
Date
Msg-id 1231443486.18005.282.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673
List pgsql-bugs
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No, that seems utterly unsafe to me.  We'd have a corrupt index and
> >> nothing to cause it to get repaired.
>
> > We do exactly this with GIN and GIST indexes currently.
>
> Which are not used in any system indexes.
>
> > I'd rather have a database that works, but has a corrupt index than one
> > that won't come up at all.
>
> If the btree in question is a critical system index, your value of
> "work" is going to be pretty damn small.

Those are good points.

So if its a system index we can throw a PANIC, else just LOG. Whilst a
corrupt index is annoying in the extreme, a total server outage is not
something we should allow. IMHO.

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673