Does anybody have any ideas about this.
We restarted the postmaster and the issue persists. So previously in 9.0.4 where we could clean corruption, it seems
in9.3.2 we can no longer clean corruption.o I'm assuming this because our data insert environment has not changed, so
weshouldn't be hitting any different transaction concurrency / isolation problems than we did before.
Is there a way to force deletion of a row, ignoring concurrency, similar to concurrent updates. It looks like changing
default_transaction_isolationdid not affect this:
munin2=# delete from testruns where ctid = '(37069305,4)';
ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
2014-02-26 07:42:46 GMT LOG: received SIGHUP, reloading configuration files
2014-02-26 07:42:46 GMT LOG: parameter "default_transaction_isolation" changed to "read uncommitted"
2014-02-26 07:42:53 GMT ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
2014-02-26 07:42:53 GMT STATEMENT: delete from testruns where ctid = '(37069305,4)';
thanks,
~ john
On Feb 25, 2014, at 11:43 AM, john gale <john@smadness.com> wrote:
> We ran into an open file limit on the DB host (Mac OS X 10.9.0, Postgres 9.3.2) and caused the familiar "ERROR:
unexpectedchunk number 0 (expected 1) for toast value 155900302 in pg_toast_16822" when selecting data.
>
> Previously when we've run into this kind of corruption we could find the specific corrupted rows in the table and
deleteby ctid. However, this time we're running into a persistent "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated" when deleting
byctid.
>
> munin2=# select ctid from testruns where id = 141889653;
> ctid
> --------------
> (37069816,3)
> (1 row)
>
> munin2=# delete from testruns where ctid = '(37069816,3)';
> ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
>
> This always occurs and seems to prevent us from cleaning up the database by removing the corrupted rows.
>
> Before attempting to do more drastic things like restart the postgres instance, is there some known way of getting
aroundthis error and cleaning up the corruption (other than the full replicate / reindex / suggestions from around the
webthat are more involved than deleting corrupted rows by ctid).
>
> thanks,
>
> ~ john
