When did the coloured shoulder pauldrons on stormtroopers first appear? in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again From: Maxim Boguk
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. 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. > That's seems reasonable. In order to manage with them I've tried lots of different things.
NOTICE: This index IS NOT WAL LOGGED and cannot be used on SLAVE servers or AFTER RECOVERY. See Documentation for Details! Collaborator lonvia commented Jun 12, 2012 Glad it worked. Do you need to know and cast the spell Scrying to use a Crystal Ball of True Seeing? Postgresql Reindex Table The system returned: (22) Invalid argument The remote host or network may be down.
If you want to create hash indexes you need to set it to > > true or else you just get errors. > > I still think this is throwing the Invalid Page In Block Of Relation Base Is it possible to overwrite the data folder: /var/lib/postgresql/8.4./main with our data from the backup? One of the arguments against Bruce's proposal to print a warning at hash index creation is that it's a particularly ineffective form of deprecation. We've already hinted above at one way this could happen: a REINDEX.
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 Postgresql Repair I will appreciate any help, thank you in advance. If the relation was an index, the solution would be to simply run a REINDEX INDEX indexname on it, which will recreate the entire index with a new relfilenode. If you want to create hash indexes you need to set it to true or else you just get errors.
If people cannot solve the problem, try technology. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6895736/error-could-not-read-block-4707-of-relation-1663-16384-16564-success Wow, that sounds much more radical than we discussed. Could Not Read Block In File Postgresql Thesis reviewer requests update to literature review to incorporate last four years of research. Postgres Zero_damaged_pages What's interesting as well is that this file has a last modification date of April, 29th - when the DB has been created on the Master server much more recently, by
I increased PGs shared memory a bit, now it seems to import fine. have a peek at these guys Recovery can't write to the catalog. 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 You can look up which relation it is by querying the pg_class system table of the correct database: $ psql -d foobar -c "select relname,relkind from pg_class where relfilenode=31582" relname | Postgresql Invalid Page In Block
That would get people's attention > without being mere nagging in other situations. Then I tried vm.overcommit_memory=1 - no sense. Built-in replication is wonderful, slony sucks =), but I have some performance issues. check over here 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
EDIT: I tried this code: select relname , relfilenode from pg_class where relname in ('1663','16384','16564'); but it returns: relname | relfilenode ---------+------------- (0 rows) postgresql share|improve this question edited Aug 1 I guess my best bet is to replace it by another kind of indexes... While it's impossible to know exactly what the missing relfilenode referred to, the REINDEX is as close to a smoking gun as we are going to get.
Server is db backend for very large web project under quite a heavy load (10k+ request per second to db). Signal 7 means hardware problems. This is the most likely explanation. That's a lot more likely than a backup taken while the index was being updated.
asked 3 years ago viewed 8960 times active 3 months ago Related 1Remote connection to PostgresSQL in Windows 2008 Server is prompting the error below4TOAST Table Growth Out of Control - We need a check that is tightly > connected to actual unsafe usage, rather than basically-user-unfriendly > complaints at a point that's not doing anything unsafe. (Well, anything > more unsafe 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 ♦ ♦ this content 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
Movie about a board-game that asks the players touchy questions Why don't browser DNS caches mitigate DDOS attacks on DNS providers? Sign in to comment Contact GitHub API Training Shop Blog About © 2016 GitHub, Inc. The word "relation" is Postgres database-speak for a generic object in the database: in this case, it is almost certainly going to be a table or an index. David J.
Is this a hash index? Kind Regards, Maksym -- Maxim Boguk Senior Postgresql DBA. Once you use the exits, you're finally inside me "Surprising" examples of Markov chains Are illegal immigrants more likely to commit crimes? But knowing what type of relation is affected, and conditionally reporting additional diagnostic detail based upon that type, has value since, as this case shows, when an error like this arises
A hot backup should be fine if there were no writes to the index during the hot backup. Our webapplication uses jdbc to connect to the PostgreSQL Server.