Home > Could Not > Postgresql Error Could Not Read Block 0 In File

Postgresql Error Could Not Read Block 0 In File

Contents

in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again Previous:From: John R PierceDate: 2012-02-20 20:54:07 Subject: Re: Question on Rules Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL Copyright © 1996-2016 The PostgreSQL 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 It would probably be wise to test both your RAM and disc for hardware errors nonetheless, just to avoid nasty surprises later. Sign up for free to join this conversation September 2012 10:25:50 +0200 Andres Freund > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> We had a similar issue at a customer site. weblink

Seeing I got push-back just for the warning, I don't see how disabling "logged" WAL indexes is going to be accepted. If you want to create hash indexes you need to set it to > true or else you just get errors. Derivatives: simplifying "d" of a number without being over "dx" How do you say "you all" in Esperanto? So the DB was created new by the import.

Could Not Read Block In File Postgresql

But renaming works just as well. 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 Responses Re: could not read block XXXXX in file "base/YYYYY/ZZZZZZ": read only 160 of 8192 bytes at 2011-06-16 20:28:48 from Kevin Grittner pgsql-bugs by date Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-06-16 20:28:48 Subject: If we can't find the best way to warn people, > let's find _a_ way, at least. > > I feel we are waiting for the calvary to come over the

You signed out in another tab or window. What are the alternatives to InfoPath Was the Boeing 747 designed to be supersonic? See Documentation for Details! Postgresql Invalid Page In Block current community blog chat Database Administrators Database Administrators Meta your communities Sign up or log in to customize your list.

I'm sure this is related to the problem, but (a) it presumably worked before, for sufficient values of "worked", and (b) if it's going to be disallowed, I think it needs Postgresql Error Could Not Read Block In File So I think such a GUC might have helped to prevent the problem. > We need a check that is tightly > connected to actual unsafe usage, rather than basically-user-unfriendly > And indexes and tables can be of any type, there are no regularity. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKFQuwaQQBG-gOmFB8XEebY1jpadu0Y-m7i9wJQFaQbGpy-%[email protected] In messages like "could not read block XXXXX in file "base/YYYYY/ZZZZZZ": read only 160 of 8192 bytes" YYYYY is my database and ZZZZZ somehow relates to a table or to an

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 Postgres Zero_damaged_pages Hmm. I'm all for additional and improved warnings in other places but this one at least seems to have the benefit of being relatively simple to implement and non-obnoxious since it only The best I can think of is to WAL LOG the removal of the entire relation the first time a hash index is used in a session, replacing it with a

Postgresql Error Could Not Read Block In File

And when shared buffers were set to 8Gb I hadn't experienced such troubles. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] I still think this is throwing the error at the wrong place. Could Not Read Block In File Postgresql Recovery can't write to the catalog. Postgres Could Not Read Block But that argument doesn't hold any sway for me.

Any a standby (warm or hot) maintained by WAL file copying would also be affected (i.e., streaming replication as the WAL delivery mechanism is irrelevant), and you also have problems after http://ismymailsecure.com/could-not/postgresql-socket-error.html It's not a 100% solution > because you'd still lose if you tried to use a hash index on a slave > since promoted to master. If WAL-logging of hash indexes is ever implemented, we can remove this warning. -- Bruce Momjian <[hidden email]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB What is the possible impact of dirtyc0w a.k.a. "dirty cow" bug? Invalid Page In Block Of Relation Base

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... Now what happened (from DB log): 2012-02-17 22:35:58 MSK 14333 [vxid:340/18229999 txid:2341883282] [DELETE] LOG: duration: 5.669 ms execute : delete from agency_statistics 2012-02-17 22:35:58 MSK 14333 [vxid:340/18230000 txid:0] [BIND] LOG: duration: To find the bad data , May be you can query pg_class views ; select oid,relname from pg_class where oid =1663 or oid=16564; just see what's the result! http://ismymailsecure.com/could-not/portal-error-the-memory-could-not-be-read.html Now i'm getting another error: pg_dump: SQL command failed pg_dump: Error message from server: ERROR: invalid page header in block 1047 of relation base/16390/16398 pg_dump: The command was: COPY public.data_1 (sampleid,

Counterintuitive polarizing filters Movie about a board-game that asks the players touchy questions more hot questions question feed lang-sql about us tour help blog chat data legal privacy policy work here Postgresql Reindex Table It's not a 100% solution because you'd still lose if you tried to use a hash index on a slave since promoted to master. I feel we are waiting for the calvary to come over the hill (and fix hash indexes), except the calvary never arrives.

The old DB still works when I rename it back, so I wonder ...

share|improve this answer answered Jun 13 '13 at 23:44 Craig Ringer 28.3k14083 I understand this advice (as also listed in the postgresql wiki) but in my case because the How to explain the existence of just one religion? 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, Postgresql Repair A hot backup should be fine if there were no writes to the index during the hot backup.

Here is a patch which implements the warning during CREATE INDEX ... Wow, that sounds much more radical than we discussed. 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 this content Any suggestions where and what I should look next?

No other strange errors found in the logs since server was put to production half year ago. more information about the parameter "zero_damaged_pages" http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/runtime-config-developer.html share|improve this answer edited Aug 1 '11 at 10:01 lamostreta 85122046 answered Aug 1 '11 at 8:54 francs 3,02621834 The result is If someone today tried to add a crash-unsafe, replication-impotent index, it would never be accepted, but because hash indexes came from Berkeley, we go with a warning in the CREATE INDEX 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