On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 15:43 +, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 17:12 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> >> Hmm, could well be related to the visibility map or FSM. Although those
> >> messages suggest that it's a heap/index page that's missing, not
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 17:12 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> Hmm, could well be related to the visibility map or FSM. Although those
>> messages suggest that it's a heap/index page that's missing, not FSM or
>> VM page. Any idea how to reproduce that?
>
> Regrettably,
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 17:12 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Hmm, could well be related to the visibility map or FSM. Although those
> messages suggest that it's a heap/index page that's missing, not FSM or
> VM page. Any idea how to reproduce that?
Regrettably, none. I will ask to see if th
Simon Riggs wrote:
I've had a private report of these error messages in a test of Hot
Standby, but IMHO these aren't related to that patch. It seems more
likely to be related to the new VACUUM code? Certainly hot standby does
nothing to the normal flow of existing WAL records.
LOG: database sys
I've had a private report of these error messages in a test of Hot
Standby, but IMHO these aren't related to that patch. It seems more
likely to be related to the new VACUUM code? Certainly hot standby does
nothing to the normal flow of existing WAL records.
LOG: database system was interrupted;
