Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CED31337BA2 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 18:00:20 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33916-01; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 22:00:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:42:19.394533 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from a.mail.sonic.net (a.mail.sonic.net [64.142.16.245]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE641336971; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 18:00:12 -0400 (AST) Received: from newshell.sonic.net (bolt.sonic.net [208.201.242.19]) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p21LKhEY013147 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:20:43 -0800 Received: from bolt.sonic.net (IDENT:XkQTt9rTQGpRcAnXNgmIWcKJLLQ+kHrx@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by newshell.sonic.net (8.13.6/8.12.1) with ESMTP id p21LKhtQ002656; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:20:43 -0800 Received: (from daveg@localhost) by bolt.sonic.net (8.13.6/8.12.1/Submit) id p21LKher002655; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:20:43 -0800 Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:20:43 -0800 From: daveg To: Heikki Linnakangas Cc: Maxim Boguk , Fujii Masao , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum Message-ID: <20110301212043.GN26397@sonic.net> References: <4D2D6A56.9060808@enterprisedb.com> <20110228212832.GH26397@sonic.net> <4D6C1B16.6030708@enterprisedb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D6C1B16.6030708@enterprisedb.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201103/12 X-Sequence-Number: 36884 On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 28.02.2011 23:28, daveg wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:46:14AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >>We'll likely need to go back and forth a few times with various > >>debugging patches until we get to the heart of this.. > > > >Anything new on this? I'm seeing at on one of my clients production boxes. > > I haven't heard anything from the OP since. > > >Also, what is the significance, ie what is the risk or damage potential if > >this flag is set incorrectly? > > Sequential scans will honor the flag, so you might see some dead rows > incorrectly returned by a sequential scan. That's the only "damage", but > an incorrectly set flag could be a sign of something more sinister, like > corrupt tuple headers. The flag should never be set incorrectly, so if > you see that message you have hit a bug in PostgreSQL, or you have bad > hardware. > > This flag is quite new, so a bug in PostgreSQL is quite possible. If you > still have a backup that contains those incorrectly set flags, I'd like > to see what the page looks like. I ran vacuums on all the affected tables last night. I plan to take a downtime to clear the buffer cache and then to run vacuums on all the dbs in the cluster. Most but not all the tables involved are catalogs. However, I could probably pick up your old patch sometime next week if it recurrs and send you page images. -dg -- David Gould daveg@sonic.net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869 If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.