Konrad Garus <konrad.ga...@gmail.com> writes:
> 2010/1/8 Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>:
>> I'm a bit surprised by the block numbers in the block header vs. t_self ...
>> I would have guessed that they come from a different segment (and
>> the numbers seem to match, as 603713 % 131072 = 79425), but Konrad
>> doesn't seem to be using the foo.4 file.
> I am not sure I understand what you say, but the 922494 file has 12
> parts (922494, 922494.1 through 922494.11). The file I gave you is,
> indeed, dumped from 922494.4.
Yeah, it sounds like you did it right, and anyway the block ids prove
this is the right block --- the forward links in HOT-updated tuples
have to point to the same block.
I'm just completely baffled at this point. The data appears perfectly
okay according to pg_filedump, and if pg_filedump can read the page
then the backend should be able to as well.
Just to confirm, if you try to select any of these rows by ctid, ie
select * from tablename where ctid = '(603713,1)';
you get nothing? What *should* happen is that you get the row if you
mention offset 1, 3, or 5, but nothing if you say 2 or 4.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
