Thread: Re: Corruption of few tables

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 6:03 AM sivapostgres@yahoo.com
<sivapostgres@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Using PostgreSQL 11.11, compiled by Visual C++ build 1914, 64-bit  with Powerbuilder
>
> Recently, in one of our customers' places, we got an error while saving a record from our custom-built application
usingPowerBuilder.     While saving a record, we compare a value from a table with a hard-coded value in application.
Herethe select command failed to fetch that particular record from the table and so the save failed. 
>
> When we tried to read data from randomly selected tables [ from PGAdmin], we found that records could not be read
froma set of consecutive tables. We re-started server [ Windows Server 2012 ] and tried again to read those tables.
Thistime the failure was with only one table and select was success in all other tables. 
>
> So we dropped that particular table [ around 33000 records ], after removing all foreign key links and re-created
thattable and inserted all records from a backup set. 
>
> The problem got solved.  Since this is not the first time, we are getting this error, I want to know
>
> 1.  Why is corruption happening?  How to find out the reason?
> 2.  What should I do to prevent this from happening again?
>
> Any steps or suggestions to avoid such corruptions is really appreciated.
>
Not really a direct answer - - - but - - - have you considered
updating Postgresql.
Version 11 was EOL (end of life) over a year ago. Version 17 according
to the charts I've found
is the current version.

HTH

On 2/25/25 04:39, o1bigtenor wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 6:03 AM sivapostgres@yahoo.com

> Not really a direct answer - - - but - - - have you considered
> updating Postgresql.
> Version 11 was EOL (end of life) over a year ago. Version 17 according
> to the charts I've found
> is the current version.

Actually the current community supported versions are 13-17.

The time lines for support can be found here:

https://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/

> 
> HTH
> 
> 

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On 2/25/25 22:33, sivapostgres@yahoo.com wrote:
> Thanks
> 
> // Following is the PB code to retrieve data
> 
> ls_pack_version = fn_get_product_version()
> ls_pack_build   = fn_get_product_build()
> 
> Select releasenumber, buildnumber
> Into   :ls_db_version, :ls_db_build
> From   public.co_version
> Where  modulename = 'ALL';
> If SQLCA.sqlcode <> 0 Then
>      ls_db_version = ''
>      ls_db_build   = 'base'
> End If
> 
> If ls_pack_version <> ls_db_version Then
>     as_msg   = 'Version do not match.~r~nDB Ver : ' + ls_db_version
>     as_msg += '      Build : ' + ls_db_build
>     as_msg += '~r~nPack.Ver : ' + ls_pack_version
>     as_msg += '      Build : ' + ls_pack_build
>     as_msg += '~r~nPlease upgrade Program or Database'
>     Messagebox('Error' as_msg)
>     Return False
> End If
> 
> We get the above message [ Version do not match .... ], as SQLCA.Sqlcode 
> returned is not ZERO.  [ Successful read will return ZERO ]

Not sure how the two are connected.

The message is generated if:

ls_pack_version <> ls_db_version.

 From what I can see that depends on the results of:

ls_pack_version = fn_get_product_version()

and

Select releasenumber ...

as well as

If SQLCA.sqlcode <> 0

How do you what is actually leading to?:

ls_pack_version <> ls_db_version.


> 
> We tried selecting tables from PGAdmin also, where we got Disconnected 
> from the Server...  error message.
> 
> On Tuesday 25 February, 2025 at 07:02:40 pm IST, Greg Sabino Mullane 
> <htamfids@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 7:03 AM sivapostgres@yahoo.com 
> <mailto:sivapostgres@yahoo.com> <sivapostgres@yahoo.com 
> <mailto:sivapostgres@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> 
>     1.  Why is corruption happening?  How to find out the reason?
> 
> 
> It sounds more like user error than actual corruption, but without more 
> data we cannot determine. Show us the exact commands you ran, along with 
> the results you expected to see, and the results you got. Provide as 
> much detail as possible. A reproducible test case would be ideal.
> 
>     Happiness Always
> 
> 
> That is an excellent valediction, thanks for that.
> 
> Cheers,
> Greg
> 
> --
> Crunchy Data - https://www.crunchydata.com <https://www.crunchydata.com>
> Enterprise Postgres Software Products & Tech Support
> 

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On 2/25/25 23:21, sivapostgres@yahoo.com wrote:
> Since we rectified the issue in ver 11, I couldn't get more details.

What issue is this?:

ls_pack_version <> ls_db_version

or the SSL issue you show below?


> 
> Now we are getting the same [ or similar ] issue in PostgreSQL 15.7 
> (Ubuntu 15.7-1.pgdg24.04+1) on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc 
> (Ubuntu 13.2.0-23ubuntu4) 13.2.0, 64-bit
> 
> When we ran the following query, in PGAdmin

Is this all on one machine, between machines on same network, machines 
on different networks?

What version of pgAdmin?

What if you use psql?

> 
> Select releasenumber, buildnumber
> From   public.co_version
> Where  modulename = 'ALL';
> 
> We got the following error
> ERROR: SSL error: bad length
> SSL SYSCALL error: No error (0x00000000/0)
> 
> When we try to run the same above query by opening another window [ same 
> PGAdmin, in another window ], we get correct expected result and NOT the 
> error.
> 
> Couldn't identify whether this is related to network or corruption.
> 
> Happiness Always
> BKR Sivaprakash
> 
> On Wednesday 26 February, 2025 at 12:07:00 pm IST, 
> sivapostgres@yahoo.com <sivapostgres@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, we are planning to upgrade to Ver 17 soon.
> Yesterday, we got the similar error in one more client place where 
> version 15 is running in Ubuntu Server.   We are trying to figure out 
> whether it's a network issue or corruption issue.
> 
> On Tuesday 25 February, 2025 at 08:24:44 pm IST, Adrian Klaver 
> <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/25/25 04:39, o1bigtenor wrote:
>  > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 6:03 AM sivapostgres@yahoo.com 
> <mailto:sivapostgres@yahoo.com>
> 
>  > Not really a direct answer - - - but - - - have you considered
>  > updating Postgresql.
>  > Version 11 was EOL (end of life) over a year ago. Version 17 according
>  > to the charts I've found
>  > is the current version.
> 
> Actually the current community supported versions are 13-17.
> 
> The time lines for support can be found here:
> 
> https://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/ 
> <https://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/>
> 
> 
>  >
>  > HTH
> 
>  >
>  >
> 
> -- 
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com