Hello Tom=2C Thanks for the information. But problem is it is occurring=
quite frequently in my case.
Regards=2C
Mayank Mittal
> From: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
> To: mayank.mittal.1982@hotmail.com
> CC: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385=
/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
> Date: Thu=2C 20 Sep 2012 13:15:17 -0400
>=20
> mayank.mittal.1982@hotmail.com writes:
> > The following bug has been logged on the website:
> > Bug reference: 7562
> > Logged by: Mayank Mittal
> > Email address: mayank.mittal.1982@hotmail.com
> > PostgreSQL version: 9.1.5
> > Operating system: Debian Linux 6.0
> > Description: =20
>=20
> > We are using 2 node set-up of PostgreSQL 9.1.5 in which one is master a=
nd
> > other is slave which is in sync of master with streaming replication.=20
> > The design is in such a way that in case of master node failure the sla=
ve
> > node has to take master role. I'm controlling this behaviour using Coro=
sync
> > and Heartbeat.
> > My application is requirement needs heavy database updates. Upon fail-o=
ver
> > I've noticed that database indexes got corrupted.=20
>=20
> Hmm. There is a fix for a slave-side-index-corruption problem in 9.1.6=
=2C
> which is due to be announced Monday. I am not certain whether this is
> the same thing though=3B that bug is low-probability as far as we can
> tell (it would only happen if the master had been in the middle of an
> index page split or page deletion at the instant of failover). Anyway
> the first thing to find out is whether 9.1.6 fixes it.
>=20
> regards=2C tom lane
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
=
