Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4281BFF91C for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 11:01:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SG9jC-0002sS-06 for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:01:27 +0000 Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q36E19Sg012896; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 10:01:09 -0400 (EDT) To: Simon Riggs cc: Rural Hunter , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: replication failure with GIN index In-reply-to: References: <4F7E4D49.1040106@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Simon Riggs message dated "Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:38:38 +0100" Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 10:01:09 -0400 Message-ID: <12895.1333720869@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201204/20 X-Sequence-Number: 39356 Simon Riggs writes: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Rural Hunter wrote: >> 2012-04-06 02:37:27 CST [@] PANIC: GIN metapage disappeared Known bug, see http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=57b100fe0fb1d0d5803789d3113b89fa18a34fad >> 2012-04-06 02:37:27 CST [@] CONTEXT: xlog redo Update metapage, node: >> 37547844/16405/83896882 blkno: 4294967295 > The blkno is all wrong, so it looks like a clear bug to me. [ looks into that... ] The funny blkno is attributable to this overly-cute code: case XLOG_GIN_UPDATE_META_PAGE: appendStringInfo(buf, "Update metapage, "); desc_node(buf, ((ginxlogUpdateMeta *) rec)->node, ((ginxlogUpdateMeta *) rec)->metadata.tail); break; and we also have case XLOG_GIN_DELETE_LISTPAGE: appendStringInfo(buf, "Delete list pages (%d), ", ((ginxlogDeleteListPages *) rec)->ndeleted); desc_node(buf, ((ginxlogDeleteListPages *) rec)->node, ((ginxlogDeleteListPages *) rec)->metadata.head); break; While there could be some point in printing the list head or tail pointer, it's just confusing to print it with a label of "blkno". I think we should just print the metapage block number here and be done with it. regards, tom lane