Tom Lane wrote:
This is not entirely out of the question, because of the designed-in
property that a freshly initialized page is only inserted into by
the backend that got it --- no one else will know there is any
free space in it until VACUUM first passes over it. So if there
are a lot of diff
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 10:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "two separate SAN switches pulled out" --- is the
> DB spread across multiple SAN controllers?
>
It's using IO mutilpath through 2 HBAs. Both of those were taken down.
Brad.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (p
Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 10:29 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Brad Nicholson wrote:
>>> It was. This table is an insert only log table that was being heavily
>>> was being heavily written to at the time of the crash.
>>
>> Is it possible that there were
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 10:29 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Brad Nicholson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 15:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > We just took a test database down (PG 8.1.11) fairly hard (pulled a SAN
>
> > > It would be easier to be
Brad Nicholson wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 15:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > We just took a test database down (PG 8.1.11) fairly hard (pulled a SAN
> > It would be easier to believe that if the uninitialized pages were all
> > contiguous though.
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 15:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We just took a test database down (PG 8.1.11) fairly hard (pulled a SAN
> It could be that but not necessarily. These could be pages that were
> allocated to put new tuples into, but the crash happ
Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We just took a test database down (PG 8.1.11) fairly hard (pulled a SAN
> switch out while it was under load), which caused the DB to crash. It
> started up fine, when I vacuumed the DB, I saw the following messages.
> WARNING: relation "my_table" pag
Brad Nicholson wrote:
> We just took a test database down (PG 8.1.11) fairly hard (pulled a SAN
> switch out while it was under load), which caused the DB to crash. It
> started up fine, when I vacuumed the DB, I saw the following messages.
>
> WARNING: relation "my_table" page 652139 is uniniti
We just took a test database down (PG 8.1.11) fairly hard (pulled a SAN
switch out while it was under load), which caused the DB to crash. It
started up fine, when I vacuumed the DB, I saw the following messages.
WARNING: relation "my_table" page 652139 is uninitialized --- fixing
WARNING: rela
