Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Olivier Macchioni <olivier(dot)macchioni(at)wingo(dot)ch>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Date: 2014-05-15 19:07:14
Message-ID: 31390.1400180834@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:20:35PM +0200, Olivier Macchioni wrote:
>> I guess my best bet is to replace it by another kind of indexes... and maybe one day PostgreSQL will be clever enough to issue a warning / error in such a case for the people like me who don't read *all the doc* :P

> Yes, streaming replication has made our hash indexes even worse. In the
> past, I have suggested we issue a warning for the creation of hash
> indexes, but did not get enough agreement.

Mainly because it wouldn't be a very helpful message.

I wonder though if we could throw a flat-out error for attempts to use
a hash index on a hot standby server. That would get people's attention
without being mere nagging in other situations. It's not a 100% solution
because you'd still lose if you tried to use a hash index on a slave
since promoted to master. But it would help without being a large
sink for effort.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-05-15 19:15:31 Re: BUG #10330: pg_ctl does not correctly honor "DETACHED_PROCESS"
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2014-05-15 19:02:35 Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes