Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2006-06-29 kell 17:23, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom,
> > we have a newer and much smaller (35M) file showing the same thing:
> Thanks. Looking into this, what I find is that *both* indexes have
> duplicated entries for the same heap tuple:
> However, the two entries in idx1 contain different data!!
> What I speculate right at the moment is that we are not looking at index
> corruption at all, but at heap corruption: somehow, the first insertion
> into ctid (27806,2) got lost and the same ctid got re-used for the next
> inserted row. We fixed one bug like this before ...
Marc: do you have triggers on some replicated tables ?
I remember having some corruption in a database with weird circular
trigger structures, some of them being slony log triggers.
The thing that seemed to mess up something inside there, was when change
on parent rownt fired a trigger that changes child table rows and there
rows fired another trigger that changed the same parent row again.
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia
Skype me: callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-06-29 22:01:08|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-06-29 21:37:41|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2|