Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> writes:
> On 29/10/10 04:32, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Excerpts from Mark Kirkwood's message of jue oct 28 02:20:56 -0300 2010:
>>> I'm guessing the index error is due to the uninitialized table pages
>>> (the index "content_node_node_type_id_inserted_idx" is on the "node"
>>> table).
>> Not necessarily ... You still have the index in that state, right?
>> We could try some diagnostics on it.
> Doing some more digging - there was an out of memory incident on the
> master the previous day, so I guess both of these observations could
> well be caused by leftover partially completed operations.
Were there similar warnings on the master? Uninitialized-page warnings
are expected in certain error-recovery scenarios, but I'd be a little
worried if the slave appeared to be out of sync with the master.
regards, tom lane
