You're right, REINDEX was not done.
I've stopped the VACUUM, did a proper server restart (pg_ctl -m fast -w restart)
and will work on rebuilding relations.
Seems like I have another issue with a bunch of bloated tables on my way also.
Thanks for the support.
2012/9/26 Andres Freund :
>> Last ent
Hi,
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 07:57:06 AM Виктор Егоров wrote:
> I'm afraid I'm exactly in this situation now.
:(
> Last entry from the 9.1.6 recommended VACUUM (FREEZE, VERBOSE, ANALYZE)
It recommended doing a REINDEX first though? I guess you didn't do that?
> was: INFO: "meta_version
Forget to mention, that:
- VACUUM is running on the master;
- current state is unchanged for 20 hours.
2012/9/26 Виктор Егоров :
> I'm afraid I'm exactly in this situation now.
>
> Last entry from the 9.1.6 recommended VACUUM (FREEZE, VERBOSE, ANALYZE) was:
> INFO: "meta_version_chunks": found 55
I'm afraid I'm exactly in this situation now.
Last entry from the 9.1.6 recommended VACUUM (FREEZE, VERBOSE, ANALYZE) was:
INFO: "meta_version_chunks": found 55363 removable, 32566245 nonremovable
row versions in 450292 out of 450292 pages
DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
There
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hrm. I retract my earlier statement about the low likelihood of corruption due
> to this.
Yeah. :-(
We've recently had at least one report of autovacuum failing to
terminate due to a series of index pages forming a circular loop, and
at l
On Friday, September 21, 2012 03:30:31 PM Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 9/20/12 11:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On Monday, September 17, 2012 03:58:37 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> OK, that explains why we've not seen a blizzard of trouble reports.
> >> Still seems like a good idea to fix it ASAP, though
On 9/20/12 11:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 03:58:37 PM Tom Lane wrote:
OK, that explains why we've not seen a blizzard of trouble reports.
Still seems like a good idea to fix it ASAP, though.
Btw, I think RhodiumToad/Andrew Gierth and I some time ago helped a user i
On Monday, September 17, 2012 03:58:37 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > Btw, I played with this some more on Saturday and I think, while
> > definitely a bad bug, the actual consequences aren't as bad as at least
> > I initially feared.
> >
> > Fake relcache entries are currently se
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 06:29:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Definitions aside, I think it's a pretty scary issue. It basically means
> > that if you have a recovery (crash or archive) during which you read a
> > buffer into memory, the buffer won't be checkpointed. So if
