Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13
Date
Msg-id AANLkTik9ds9+a=JROSvEvqD5LK0tST7LnYvtgBnuOVQb@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13  (Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil.sontakke@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Nikhil Sontakke
<nikhil.sontakke@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure, but I doubt it.  If the VACUUM FULL committed, then the
>> WAL records should be on disk, but if the immediate shutdown happened
>> while it was still running, then the WAL records might still be in
>> wal_buffers, in which case I don't think they'll get written out and
>> thus zero pages in the index are to be expected.
>>...
>
> Oh yeah, so if VF committed, the xlog should have been ok too, but
> can't say the same about the shared buffers.

But there was a later block that *was* written out. What was the LSN
on that block? everything in the WAL log should have been fsynced up
to that point when that buffer was flushed.

Was there a machine restart in the picture as well?



--
greg


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Macros for time magic values
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add missing keywords to gram.y's unreserved_keywords list.