Re: psql: FATAL 1: Index pg_class_relname_index is not a btree

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop(at)range(dot)infoplease(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: psql: FATAL 1: Index pg_class_relname_index is not a btree
Date: 2000-09-06 05:44:20
Message-ID: 12996.968219060@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

[ Sorry for slow response, but this just arrived here. Are you
subscribed to pgsql-general? It looks to me like Marc just got round
to approving a week or so's worth of nonmember submissions to the
lists... ]

Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop(at)range(dot)infoplease(dot)com> writes:
> I came in this morning to find my network monitor reporting a problem
> with one of our databases.
> The error was:
> FATAL 1: Index pg_class_relname_index is not a btree

Yipes! That message indicates that the page-zero header of this
index got clobbered, which is bad enough in any case, but especially
so on a critical system index like this one. The other symptoms
you mention sound like pg_database has been clobbered as well.

I haven't heard of anything like that before. Considering that you
also mention recent hardware upgrades, I have to wonder if the hardware
dropped the ball. I don't like blaming hardware problems (for a
software guy, it feels too much like passing the buck) but it seems
like a pretty likely bet here.

If you haven't given up hope and reloaded in the past week, I'd be
willing to help poke into the remains, on the chance that we
might discover something useful. Let me know off-list.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jules Bean 2000-09-06 08:33:07 Re: Large selects handled inefficiently?
Previous Message Ricardo Timaran 2000-09-06 04:49:47 Compilator Postgres