Re: [BUGS] BUG #4509: array_cat's null behaviour is inconsistent

2009-01-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: Improve handling of NULLs in arrays * http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2008-11/msg9.php --- Kevin Field wrote: > > The following bug has been logged online: > > Bu

Re: [BUGS] PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673

2009-01-08 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs writes: > But with a down server, you just force people to do pg_resetxlog, which > loses both the corruption (probably) and real, useful data (likely) and > *then* they bring up the server. I don't see why we should force people > to take a manual action and lose data to bring up the

Re: [BUGS] PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673

2009-01-08 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> If the btree in question is a critical system index, your value of > >> "work" is going to be pretty damn small. > > > So if its a system index we can throw a PANI

Re: [BUGS] BUG #4494: Memory leak in pg_regress.c

2009-01-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
Patch written, attached, and applied. --- dvice_n...@yahoo.com wrote: > > The following bug has been logged online: > > Bug reference: 4494 > Logged by: > Email address: dvice_n...@yahoo.com > PostgreSQ

Re: [BUGS] PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673

2009-01-08 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs writes: > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> If the btree in question is a critical system index, your value of >> "work" is going to be pretty damn small. > So if its a system index we can throw a PANIC, else just LOG. Whilst a > corrupt index is annoying in the ex

Re: [BUGS] PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673

2009-01-08 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> No, that seems utterly unsafe to me. We'd have a corrupt index and > >> nothing to cause it to get repaired. > > > We do exactly this with GIN and GIST indexes cu

Re: [BUGS] PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673

2009-01-08 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs writes: > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> No, that seems utterly unsafe to me. We'd have a corrupt index and >> nothing to cause it to get repaired. > We do exactly this with GIN and GIST indexes currently. Which are not used in any system indexes. > I'd rathe

Re: [BUGS] PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673

2009-01-08 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Can we downgrade the error from PANIC to LOG please? > > No, that seems utterly unsafe to me. We'd have a corrupt index and > nothing to cause it to get repaired. We do exactly this with GIN and GIST indexes currently. I'd rather have a

Re: [BUGS] PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673

2009-01-08 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs writes: > On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 14:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm ... I wonder if this is telling us that our patch here was >> incomplete? >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2006-11/msg4.php >> >> At the time we thought this failure could only occur during _bt_p

Re: [BUGS] PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" for split pages 1606/1673

2009-01-08 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 14:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > val writes: > > I have a database that refuses to start due to the afformentioned error. I > > am running POstgreSQL 8.1.11 on a Debian Etch box. > > > Jan 5 10:36:29 db2 postgres[17111]: [11-1] PANIC: failed to re-find > > parent key in "