Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Rob Sargentg
Subject Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again
Date
Msg-id 4F4309D3.20002@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again  (Maxim Boguk <maxim.boguk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On 02/20/2012 07:46 PM, Maxim Boguk wrote:


On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Maxim Boguk <maxim.boguk@gmail.com> writes:
>> Do you know why the mod date on the file is 2012-02-20 12:04?

> Cron was attempt to populate the table once per hour after that problem
> happened.
> And each time it was produced the same error.

That's interesting ... is there any possibility that the insertions were
attempting to insert values that matched a previously-existing primary
key value?  I'm thinking there's no reason for the INSERT per se to be
touching nonexistent blocks, but if for some reason the pkey index still
had entries pointing at vanished rows (as it seems to) then the errors
could be coming from uniqueness checks attempting to fetch those rows to
see if they're live.

                       regards, tom lane

Hi,

There isn't possibility but close to 100% new inserted values were matched a previously-existing primary
key value.
The table is hand-made 'materialyzed view'-type statistic table which is getting recalculated via cron.

--
Maxim Boguk
Senior Postgresql DBA.



Sorry Maxim,
Trying to follow along here:  Are you say the inserted record DO or DO NOT match previously existing key values.


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Maxim Boguk
Date:
Subject: Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again
Next
From: Maxim Boguk
Date:
Subject: Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again