> On Aug 13, 2019, at 3:23 AM, George Potemkin wrote:
> All this time the block contained the changes from the uncommitted transaction
i thought you said the note was corrupted but not the block. so if the block is fine, of course it can sit there and be used. even updated.=
The block was fine in the cases of the 815 as well as of the 819. "Fine" means that the block's structure was correct. And there was a recovery note that must be applied to this state of the block but it can't be done. No matter if it's due to the corruption inside the block (not our cases) or due to the corruption in recovery note (case of the 819) or due to the corruption in shared memory (case of the 815). Block contained the "dirty" data that can't be "cleaned". I would say the block was inaccessible for applying the recovery notes but accessible for the purposes of dirty reads. In one word: it's a "corruption".