On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 11:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Interestingly, this bug isn't triggered unless there's an already empty > > or uninitialized page at the end of table. If vacuum removes the last > > tuple from the page, that will be WAL-logged and replay of that calls > > smgrcreate. > > Yeah, I tried other ways to provoke the failure and came to the same > conclusion. The reproducer really is relying on the fact that vacuum's > PageInit of an uninitialized page doesn't get WAL-logged. Which is a > bit nervous-making. As far as I can think at the moment, it won't > provoke any problem because the first subsequent WAL-logged touch of > the page would be an INSERT with the INIT bit set; but it does mean > that a warm-standby slave would be out of sync with the master for an > indefinitely long period with respect to the on-disk contents of such a > page. Does that matter?
If I understand this: the primary would be initialised yet the standby would remain uninitialised? I don't think that matters because the actual the data contents are still zero. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
