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 18313DB758 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:43:57 -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 86554-04 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:43:53 +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 7E770DB773 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:43:55 -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 jAF0huAI004637; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:43:56 -0500 (EST) To: Scott Marlowe cc: Kevin Grittner , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: ERROR: could not read block In-reply-to: <1132011827.3582.18.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> References: <4378C76502000025000006AE@gwmta.wicourts.gov> <1132011827.3582.18.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Comments: In-reply-to Scott Marlowe message dated "Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:43:47 -0600" Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:43:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4636.1132015436@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Score: 0.006 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/162 X-Sequence-Number: 19535 Scott Marlowe writes: > On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 17:20, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> ERROR: could not read block 649847 of relation 1663/16385/16483: >> Invalid argument > When a block is unreadable, this means that the OS is experiencing a > read error from the hard drive. I'd believe that explanation if the errno were EIO (I/O error), but EINVAL isn't really a very sane error number to return for a hardware failure. It'd be useful to find out what Windows error code is actually being returned by the operating system. I seem to recall that we've noted some poorly chosen Windows->errno translations before, so maybe this is another one ... but all we can really say at the moment is "that shouldn't be happening". regards, tom lane