Re: BUG #10432: failed to re-find parent key in index - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: BUG #10432: failed to re-find parent key in index
Date
Msg-id 20140603094337.GJ24145@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #10432: failed to re-find parent key in index  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: BUG #10432: failed to re-find parent key in index  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-bugs
On 2014-06-03 01:36:40 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > Did you check whether all the necessary FPIs were generated? That'd be
> > my very first suspect.
>
> Really? Shouldn't only the last one matter? All the other ones will be
> overwritten later by later full page writes anywys, no? Also, i
> thought this was pretty much underlying infrastructure that would be
> pretty hard to get wrong in just one call site.

Well, if we missed a single FPI somewhere - e.g. by accidentally not
filling XLogRecData->buffer or by confusing which bkp block numbers
refer to what (both happened during 9.4 development) you'd potentially
get a torn page. And that'd very well explain such an error message.

Your split record had only one backup block. I'd manually make sure all
the other ones previously had some. You probably need to look in the nbt
code to see which bkp block refers to what.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
 Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Haribabu Kommi
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max