Sorry, I should have included the index definition, its a normal btree index on a bigint column:
CREATE INDEX user_pictures_picture_dhash_idx
ON user_pictures
USING btree
(picture_dhash);
And the table itself:CREATE INDEX user_pictures_picture_dhash_idx
ON user_pictures
USING btree
(picture_dhash);
CREATE TABLE user_pictures (picture_dhash bigint)
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Victor Blomqvist <vb@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> From time to time I get this and similar errors in my Postgres log file:
> < 2015-12-17 07:45:05.976 CST >ERROR: index
> "user_pictures_picture_dhash_idx" contains unexpected zero page at block
> 123780
Hm, can't tell for sure from the error message text, but the index name
suggests that this is a hash index?
> The server is a read slave, set up with streaming replication. We run
> PostgreSQL 9.3.5.
Hash indexes are not WAL-logged, which means their contents do not
propagate to slave servers, which basically means you cannot use them
in replication setups.
> Will it be fixed with a newer version of Postgres?
Adding WAL-logging to hash indexes has been on the to-do list for a long
time; but it's never gotten done, in part because there has never been
any clear evidence that hash indexes are better than btree indexes for
any real-world purpose. I'm curious why you chose this index type in
the first place.
regards, tom lane
