Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X7rXr-0003tK-9O for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:40:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X7rXq-0007zX-Q5 for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:40:46 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X7rXp-0007zR-OY for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:40:45 +0000 Received: from mail-ig0-x22d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X7rXk-0005r5-Sy for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:40:44 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id h18so6821659igc.6 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:40:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=SvdYfpAMsjvqRCwpZ+F4zI+aWOG7MuvBS4k5elNiphI=; b=da12PRr9dMldfGVpYqdjg7XYxW28ppZfU5NW76uFPwK386iTMcHUhCsaNOiZTxGHbY sk0xVBNJO27amJFrL/B3NcyGeP9ZbkVwYZPi308mIItKzmuvsrPVwg6qcEumkt3B8g78 rbQi5gxJwdJm/qsgF56xkK3ub2rY5COhk77/+Bp0NwI9fKA/Ejg05x1QXqW35nFqLIRw OidKMWmN3hbitwrhnPUB0+FsgOBRPIpkn0AD2vJlm2E+ALtOdKWyuMnOSSDP9lWdaW4V HZddSHIruH4ARaXQB8Buz2/9ThMo6gC1wIV/G+gQbz/++v2i/mKSc9QQx6lppZGVn5yd fWSQ== X-Received: by 10.50.47.52 with SMTP id a20mr791509ign.42.1405626038186; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.254.2] (h77.89.102.166.static.ip.windstream.net. [166.102.89.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i10sm9289965igm.13.2014.07.17.12.40.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53C826AF.9050001@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:40:31 -0400 From: John Scalia User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Whitney , "pgsql-admin@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Trying to recover a corrupted database References: <53C81F98.9070405@gmail.com> <984033755.512124.1405624595840.JavaMail.zimbra@mail.int.journyx.com> <53C822FF.4070301@gmail.com> <2135893762.512398.1405625418721.JavaMail.zimbra@mail.int.journyx.com> In-Reply-To: <2135893762.512398.1405625418721.JavaMail.zimbra@mail.int.journyx.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040804080308050303000706" X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-admin Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040804080308050303000706 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, we already have the schema in a canned file. So, we wouldn't need to do a pg_dump for the schema, and I can get into the database using psql obviously. That's how I produced the setting from pg_settings. But, I really don't want to have to go through 150K+ records to find the multiple broken ones, if I don't have to do so. I'm just hoping for a faster way. On 7/17/2014 3:30 PM, Scott Whitney wrote: > Well, at this point, let me let the big brains answer your main question on the thread and tell you what _I_ did when I got into a similar situation. > > a) pg_dump --schema-only > db.structure > b) From here it was a lot of select * from table until I found the broken one(s) and I worked around the actual bad data by offset/limit on the selects on the busted tables. > > It took me several hours, but it did work (for me). > > That's assuming you can even psql to the db in the first place when the postmaster is running. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > We're only working with a single database on this system, and yes, I attempted a pg_dump earlier today on just one single table - it failed (I know pg_dump and pg_basebackup > use different mechanisms.) Mind you it's a large table with 154,000 rows in it. The overall database is somewhere around 43GB. > > On 7/17/2014 3:16 PM, Scott Whitney wrote: > > a) How many databases do you have? > b) Have you tried to pg_dump the database(s) to see if that succeeds? > > If you _can_ pg_dump (which you might or might not be able to do), you could re-init the cluster and restore. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Hi all, > > You may have seen my post from yesterday about our production database getting corrupted. Well, this morning we brought the system down to single user and ran an fsck > which did > report some drive errors. We repeated until no additional errors were reported. Then, we brought the system back to multi-user status and ran a successful > pg_basebackup on the > broken database. Since then we restarted the database and a ps -ef result looks like: > > /usr/pgsql-9.2/bin/postmaster -D /opt/datacenter -o -c zero_damaged_pages=true -i -N 384 -p 5431 > > After the Db started up, we ran a VACUUM FULL ANALYZE which ran for about 3 hours, but the database is still showing the same type of errors in its log: invalid page > header in > block 29718... etc. What disturbed me a little, is that I don't think the zero_damaged_pages got applied. Checking the pg_settings table, we got: > > select name, setting, boot_val, reset_val from pg_settings where name = 'zero_damaged_pages'; > name | setting | boot_val | reset_val > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > zero_damaged_pages | on | off | on > > Now, my colleague ran this after he tried running some operations again after I told him how to set zero_damaged_pages again. He swears that that it was on when the > first VACUUM > FULL ANALYZE was run, but I'm not as sure. Plus, I don't understand why the boot_val shows as off. In any event, as we're still getting log errors like before, I > don't really know > what to try next other than rerunning the VACUUM FULL again. Help? > -- > Jay > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin > > > > --------------040804080308050303000706 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Well, we already have the schema in a canned file. So, we wouldn't need to do a pg_dump for the schema, and I can get into the database using psql obviously. That's how I produced the setting from pg_settings. But, I really don't want to have to go through 150K+ records to find the multiple broken ones, if I don't have to do so. I'm just hoping for a faster way.

On 7/17/2014 3:30 PM, Scott Whitney wrote:
Well, at this point, let me let the big brains answer your main question on the thread and tell you what _I_ did when I got into a similar situation.

a) pg_dump --schema-only <database name>   >  db.structure
b) From here it was a lot of select * from table until I found the broken one(s) and I worked around the actual bad data by offset/limit on the selects on the busted tables.

It took me several hours, but it did work (for me).

That's assuming you can even psql to the db in the first place when the postmaster is running.


We're only working with a single database on this system, and yes, I attempted a pg_dump earlier today on just one single table - it failed (I know pg_dump and pg_basebackup use different mechanisms.) Mind you it's a large table with 154,000 rows in it. The overall database is somewhere around 43GB.

On 7/17/2014 3:16 PM, Scott Whitney wrote:
a) How many databases do you have?
b) Have you tried to pg_dump the database(s) to see if that succeeds?

If you _can_ pg_dump (which you might or might not be able to do), you could re-init the cluster and restore.


Hi all,

You may have seen my post from yesterday about our production database getting corrupted. Well, this morning we brought the system down to single user and ran an fsck which did
report some drive errors. We repeated until no additional errors were reported. Then, we brought the system back to multi-user status and ran a successful pg_basebackup on the
broken database. Since then we restarted the database and a ps -ef result looks like:

/usr/pgsql-9.2/bin/postmaster -D /opt/datacenter -o -c zero_damaged_pages=true -i -N 384 -p 5431

After the Db started up, we ran a VACUUM FULL ANALYZE which ran for about 3 hours, but the database is still showing the same type of errors in its log: invalid page header in
block 29718... etc. What disturbed me a little, is that I don't think the zero_damaged_pages got applied. Checking the pg_settings table, we got:

select name, setting, boot_val, reset_val from pg_settings where name = 'zero_damaged_pages';
                   name             |  setting  |  boot_val  | reset_val
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  zero_damaged_pages  |  on          | off              | on

Now, my colleague ran this after he tried running some operations again after I told him how to set zero_damaged_pages again. He swears that that it was on when the first VACUUM
FULL ANALYZE was run, but I'm not as sure. Plus, I don't understand why the boot_val shows as off. In any event, as we're still getting log errors like before, I don't really know
what to try next other than rerunning the VACUUM FULL again. Help?
--
Jay



--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin




--------------040804080308050303000706--