X-Original-To: pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7915D6862 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:25:49 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38195-01 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:25:51 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D23D6837 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:25:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jAG0PljM029808; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:25:47 -0500 (EST) To: "Kevin Grittner" cc: zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu, icub3d@gmail.com, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: ERROR: could not read block In-reply-to: <4379DF3D0200002500000714@gwmta.wicourts.gov> References: <4379DF3D0200002500000714@gwmta.wicourts.gov> Comments: In-reply-to "Kevin Grittner" message dated "Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:14:37 -0600" Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:25:47 -0500 Message-ID: <29806.1132100747@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/202 X-Sequence-Number: 19575 "Kevin Grittner" writes: > ERROR: could not read block 1482762 of relation 1663/16385/16483: > Invalid argument > So the block number is increasing each time. I'm inclined to think > that this is the result of the scan passing over rows added by itself. It's just about impossible to believe that you would get an error at the block I/O level due to a higher-level issue like "scan passing over rows added by itself". What I *could* believe, on the other hand, is that there's some problem with reading blocks recently added to the file. As I said before, we really really need to find out what the Windows-level error code is --- "Invalid argument" isn't telling us anything useful here. regards, tom lane