On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2012-11-09 15:57:06 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> This is the only known occurrence to me, ever, but given it's
>> incredibly ephemeral nature probably glossed over most of the time, I
>> can't say "it's the only time it's ever happened".
On 2012-11-09 15:57:06 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
> This is the only known occurrence to me, ever, but given it's
> incredibly ephemeral nature probably glossed over most of the time, I
> can't say "it's the only time it's ever happened".
I wish we had some way to easily discern such "something i
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 22:49 +, dan...@heroku.com wrote:
>> PGError: ERROR: could not read block 556642 in file "base/16385/2904143.4":
>> read only 0 of 8192
>
> Does that seem wildly off to you, or a little off? Do you think that
> block may
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 22:49 +, dan...@heroku.com wrote:
> PGError: ERROR: could not read block 556642 in file "base/16385/2904143.4":
> read only 0 of 8192
Does that seem wildly off to you, or a little off? Do you think that
block may have existed in the past, but was truncated by a VACUUM or
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7648
Logged by: Daniel Farina
Email address: dan...@heroku.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.0.9
Operating system: Ubuntu 10.04
Description:
At more or less one point in time exactly (the same second, at minimum
