and maybe one day PostgreSQL will be clever enough to issue a warning / error in such a case for the people like me who don't read *all the doc* :P What is the possible impact of dirtyc0w a.k.a. "dirty cow" bug? and maybe one day PostgreSQL will be clever enough to issue a warning / error in such a case for the people like me who don't read *all the doc* :P But it would help without being a large sink for effort. http://bsdupdates.com/could-not/postgresql-error-could-not-read-block-in-file.php
Kind Regards, Maksym -- Maxim Boguk Senior Postgresql DBA. Greg Stark Reply | Threaded Open this post in threaded view ♦ ♦ | Report Content as Inappropriate ♦ ♦ Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file I wonder though if we could throw a flat-out error for attempts to use a hash index on a hot standby server. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list ([hidden email]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs Olivier Macchioni Reply | Threaded Open this post in threaded view ♦ ♦
The symptoms are similar to some previous (but much older) posts on this list, for instance http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] I think this bug is not fixed yet... -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list why can't they send them all?" МойКруг: http://mboguk.moikrug.ru/ "People problems are solved with people. People > will turn on the GUC the first time it gets in their way, and then > much later discover that the index doesn't work on a slave, and we'll
If WAL-logging of hash indexes is ever implemented, we can remove >> this warning. > > Applied, though I used the term "streaming standbys" to match our docs. In your example, since the hash index was created by some > >> app not manually, I'll bet nobody would have seen/noticed the warning > >> even if there had been If the application doesn't point out it is using hash indexes then the typical user will not be checking PostgreSQL documentation for the same; but just maybe the notice that is Postgresql Invalid Page In Block What do your base stats do for your character other than set your modifiers?
And when shared buffers were set to 8Gb I hadn't experienced such troubles. Postgresql Error Could Not Read Block In File Those aren't supported for replication > purposes (no WAL code :-(). > > regards, tom lane Bingo: xx=# \d ir_translation_src_hash_idx Index "public.ir_translation_src_hash_idx" Column | Type | Definition --------+---------+------------ src But if there's been a write ever since then even if it was a long time ago the standby index is unusable. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKFQuwaQQBG-gOmFB8XEebY1jpadu0Y-m7i9wJQFaQbGpy-%[email protected] Any suggestions where and what I should look next?
Browse other questions tagged postgresql or ask your own question. Postgres Zero_damaged_pages In the > past, I have suggested we issue a warning for the creation of hash > indexes, but did not get enough agreement. in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again at 2012-02-21 01:32:01 from Tom Lane pgsql-hackers by date Next:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-02-21 01:19:55 Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes Most likely you have disk or file system problems.
IF the result is a index, just recreate the corrupted index; IF the result is a table , than it means that there are some data of the table is damaged, have a peek at this web-site arminus commented Jun 12, 2012 Yes it was a memory issue, 2GB shared memory for PG wasn't enough, the rebuild worked with 4GB now. Could Not Read Block In File Postgresql In your example, since the hash index was created by some > >> app not manually, I'll bet nobody would have seen/noticed the warning > >> even if there had been Postgres Could Not Read Block In your example, since the hash index was created by some app not manually, I'll bet nobody would have seen/noticed the warning even if there had been one.
Here is a patch which implements the warning during CREATE INDEX ... have a peek at these guys Free forum by Nabble Edit this page Skip to content Ignore Learn more Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox. and maybe one day PostgreSQL will be clever enough to issue a warning / error in such a case for the people like me who don't read *all the doc* :P That would get people's attention without being mere nagging in other situations. Invalid Page In Block Of Relation Base
Is this a hash index? If you want to create hash indexes you need to set it to > true or else you just get errors. It might be good to have a guc to override it (unfortunately we can't turn it into a warning since it m -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list ([hidden check over here But that argument doesn't hold any sway for me.
I will try to restore the table. Postgresql Reindex Table What I see in file system: hh=# SELECT relfilenode from pg_class where relname='agency_statistics_old'; relfilenode ------------- 118881486 postgres(at)db10:~/tmp$ ls -la /var/lib/postgresql/9.0/main/base/16404/118881486 -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 0 2012-02-20 12:04 /var/lib/postgresql/9.0/main/base/16404/118881486 So table file What are the alternatives to InfoPath Was the Boeing 747 designed to be supersonic?
I feel we are waiting for the calvary to come over the hill (and fix hash indexes), except the calvary never arrives. At some point we have to take ownership of Cause of this, i tried to connect via pg_admin. I suggested we make a GUC allow_unrecoverable_indexes and default it to false. Postgresql Repair lonvia closed this Jun 11, 2012 arminus commented Jun 11, 2012 I renamed the existing nominatim database in postgres to nominatim_old before trying to load again.
What kind of bugs do "goto" statements lead to? How to create a table of signs Once you use the exits, you're finally inside me Why is AT&T's stock price declining, during the days that they announced the acquisition of Not trivially no. this content If someone knows they are using a hash index intentionally then the notice/warning will be understood and ignored while if someone is seeing the notice/warning and are not aware of the
At some point we have to take ownership of the situation we are in and actively do something. If someone knows they are using > a hash index intentionally then the notice/warning will be understood and > ignored while if someone is seeing the notice/warning and are not aware If people cannot solve the problem, try technology. Responses Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes at 2014-05-15 15:09:47 from Tom Lane pgsql-bugs by date Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2014-05-15
It is a good idea, though. :-) -- Bruce Momjian <[hidden email]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB Why do units (from physics) behave like numbers? Find the super palindromes! The symptoms are similar to some previous (but much older) posts on this list, for instance http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] So I think this bug is not fixed yet...
Is it illegal to DDoS a phishing page? I increased PGs shared memory a bit, now it seems to import fine. How many blocks does the new index contain? > > > > > > 255 blocks according to its current size. > > -- > Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, If WAL-logging of hash indexes is ever implemented, we can remove this warning. -- Bruce Momjian <[hidden email]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB