Tom Lane wrote:
Bricklen Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
But anyway, the evidence seems pretty clear that in fact end of WAL is
in the 73 range, and so those page LSNs with 972 and 973 have to be
bogus. I'm back to thinking about dropped bits in RAM or on disk.
memtest86+ ran
Alban Hertroys wrote:
Bricklen Anderson wrote:
Any ideas on what I should try next? Considering that this db is not
in production yet, I _do_ have the liberty to rebuild the database if
necessary. Do you have any further recommendations?
I recall reading something in this ML about problems with
Bricklen Anderson wrote:
Any ideas on what I should try next? Considering that this db is not in
production yet, I _do_ have the liberty to rebuild the database if
necessary. Do you have any further recommendations?
I recall reading something in this ML about problems with the way that
Ext3 FS r
Bricklen Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> But anyway, the evidence seems pretty clear that in fact end of WAL is
>>> in the 73 range, and so those page LSNs with 972 and 973 have to be
>>> bogus. I'm back to thinking about dropped bits in RAM or on disk.
> memtest86+ ra
Bricklen Anderson wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bricklen Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I would have suggested that maybe this represented on-disk data
corruption, but the appearance of two different but not-too-far-apart
WAL offsets in two different pages suggests that indeed the en
Tom Lane wrote:
Bricklen Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I would have suggested that maybe this represented on-disk data
corruption, but the appearance of two different but not-too-far-apart
WAL offsets in two different pages suggests that indeed the end of WAL
was up around se
Bricklen Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I would have suggested that maybe this represented on-disk data
>> corruption, but the appearance of two different but not-too-far-apart
>> WAL offsets in two different pages suggests that indeed the end of WAL
>> was up around segm
Tom Lane wrote:
Bricklen Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Feb 1 11:17:50 dev94 postgres[4959]: [472-1] 2005-02-01 11:17:50 PST> ERROR:
xlog flush request
972/FC932854 is not satisfied --- flushed only to 73/86D2640
Hmm, have you perhaps played any games with pg_resetxlog in this database?
I
Bricklen Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Feb 1 11:17:50 dev94 postgres[4959]: [472-1] 2005-02-01 11:17:50 PST> ERROR:
> xlog flush request
> 972/FC932854 is not satisfied --- flushed only to 73/86D2640
Hmm, have you perhaps played any games with pg_resetxlog in this database?
I would ha
