On 01/15/2015 03:23 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
So now the question is: how did that inconsistency arise? It didn't
necessarily arise at the time of the (presumed) split of block 2 to
create 9. It could be that the opaque area was changed by something
else, some time later. I'll investigate more.
Merlin, could you re-run the test with a WAL archive (if you don't have
one already), and then run pg_xlogdump, filtering it to show only the
changes to the index? That should show us how the index got to be the
way it is. Also, if you could post a copy of the raw relation file for
pg_class_oid_index; I assume it's not too large.
Something like:
pg_xlogdump -r Btree -p walarchive/ -s 0/20035D0 | grep 11917
11917 is the relfilenode of pg_class_oid_index on a freshly initdb'd
cluster. In case it's not the same on your system, you can use oid2name
to find it out.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
