Possible data corruption with Postgres 7.4.8 - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Eric B. Ridge |
---|---|
Subject | Possible data corruption with Postgres 7.4.8 |
Date | |
Msg-id | E9197F09-8D16-44CC-91D2-A9893647484D@tcdi.com Whole thread Raw |
Responses |
Re: Possible data corruption with Postgres 7.4.8
|
List | pgsql-general |
First off, let me make clear that I blame the strange data corruption problem we encountered today on our hardware raid controller -- some versions of its firmware are known-to-be-buggy and cause the raid set to "drop" off, and we've encountered this problem in the past on this particular server. I also want to blame the corruption on pg7.4.8. Later versions seem to have fixes for (unspecific) "corruption" issues. But hardware seems much more likely. The environment for this server is: - pg7.4.8 - 2x2.4GHz Xeons, HT - 4gig ram - Linux kernel version 2.6.15 - Dell PowerEdge Expandable RAID Controller 3/Di (rev 01) which supposedly contains the latest firmware patches (tho I dunno how they relate to "rev 01"). Issue 1 ------- A single record quietly and silently disappeared in the middle of the day. We have no daily vacuum processes (only vacuum at night), stats collection is turned off, and our application has no facility for actually DELETE-ing records (at least not from the containing table). It's pure UPDATE, INSERT, and SELECT. No foreign key references that might cause cascading deletes. And no manual intervention via psql (that anyone will fess up to!). From an application standpoint, there's simply no explanation for a record disappearing. Anyways, we were playing around with pg_filedump on the affected table and discovered that the missing record in question had 212 old versions, all with exactly this infomask: infomask: 0x2513 (HASNULL|HASVARWIDTH|HASOID|XMIN_COMMITTED| XMAX_COMMITTED|UPDATED) I don't claim to fully understand what that mask actually means, but from what I can gather from looking at the masks of other known-to-be- good records, is that each of the 212 versions are "dead" in terms of MVCC rules, and that the expiration occurred as the result of an update to that version while it was "alive". Is this correct (or kinda close)? If I'm guessing correctly it seems we should have had at least one entry with the XMAX_INVALID flag set... that entry being the most-current version of the record. Am I even providing enough information here for someone else to guess? At first we feared transaction id wraparound, but the database cluster is being vacuumed every night and the age(datfrozenxid) was nowhere near the "2 billion" mark. We were roughly 73 million past 1 billion. But we've never seen wraparound before and don't really know what age(datfrozenxid) would return. However, it's damn near impossible we would have run >1 billion transactions in the 9 hours since the last VACUUM. Also the pg7.4 docs indicate that VACUUM will output a warning message when nearing the 1 billion transaction mark. In all our VACUUM logs, we've never seen this. Which leads to... Issue 2 ------- Last night's VACUUM process output this for a number of indexes: WARNING: index "foo_pkey" contains 1348636 row versions, but table contains 1348635 row versions however none of the indexes were on the table with the missing record. All the indexes for "foo_pkey"'s table output the same warning message with the same number of index and table row versions -- all off by one. We couldn't decide if each index was corrupt or if only the table was corrupt or both. And we were seeing all the really great things you'd expect to see when indexes don't jive with their tables. SELECTS using index scans were returning the wrong records, while sequential scans would return the correct record (or no record at all, which was expected). Finally, after running some consistency checks against previous backups all we could decide to do was upgrade to pg7.4.12, REINDEX every index, vacuum the thing again, restore the one missing record, and move on. We did save a binary copy of the entire installation tree, including $PGDATA in case further investigation is necessary. Does anyone here have any kind of explanation other than bad hardware? eric
pgsql-general by date: