| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dorochevsky,Michel" <michel(dot)dorochevsky(at)softcon(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared loc k ob je ct |
| Date: | 2007-04-23 14:42:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1965.1177339362@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Dorochevsky,Michel" <michel(dot)dorochevsky(at)softcon(dot)de> writes:
>> Von: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>> So, which of your tables has OID 417227? Easiest way to check is
>> select 417227::regclass
> Currently a table with name
> requireditemtypes_mill7b7c7621
> has the object id 417227.
Okay, and that table has been referenced within the failing transaction,
so we can conclude that there's nothing corrupt about the locktag. It's
just been selected from, AFAICS, so we can also eliminate the idea that
there's something weird about the way you are using that particular
table. Which leaves us with ... hmmm ... not a lot of ideas. Perhaps
the LOCK_DEBUG trace will suggest something.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-23 15:30:40 | Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared loc k ob je ct |
| Previous Message | Dorochevsky,Michel | 2007-04-23 14:28:03 | Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared loc k ob je ct |