On Friday, September 21, 2012 10:18:39 AM Bernd Helmle wrote:
> --On 20. September 2012 18:18:12 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > If it were an actual TRUNCATE, yeah. But it could be a case of VACUUM
> > truncating a now-empty table to zero blocks.
> >
> > But nothing like this would explain the OP's report that corruption is
> > completely reproducible for him. So I like your theory about hash index
> > use better. We really oughta get some WAL support in there.
>
> We had a similar issue at a customer site. The server was shut down for
> updating it from 9.1.4 to 9.1.5, after starting it again the log was
> immediately cluttered with
How was it shutdown? -m fast or -m immediate?
> ERROR: could not read block 251 in file "base/6447890/7843708": read only
> 0 of 8192 bytes
So, not block 0. How many blocks does the new index contain?
Mayank:
Do you always see the error in block 0?
> The index was a primary key on table with mostly INSERTS (only a few
> hundred DELETEs, autovacuum didn't even bother to vacuum it yet and no
> manual VACUUM). According to the customer, no DDL action takes place on
> this specific table. The kernel didn't show any errors.
Ok, this is getting wierd. Bernd some minutes ago confirmed on IRC that the
table is older than the last checkpoint...
Greetings,
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
