On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 01:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I wonder whether it's just a coincidence that these have the same offset > >> number... > > > I can't imagine any Postgres bug which would depend on the offsets > > being the same. But what I could imagine is filesystem corruption > > which copied the block to someplace else in the table or possibly has > > even mapped the same block into two different places in the table. > > That idea was in my mind too, but Mason stated that the rows showed > different "updated_at" values, so they couldn't be mirror images of that > sort.
Tom, I think you misread Mason's post of 20:23 GMT-6 where he says the created_at values are the *same*, not different. Mason's previous bug report 3724 also had duplicate rows with matching created_at values. So mangling block numbers and re-writing blocks in the wrong place is a possibility. Filesystem corruption is just one way that can occur. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
