Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #6200: standby bad memory allocations on SELECT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bridget Frey <bridget(dot)frey(at)redfin(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Brauwerman <michael(dot)brauwerman(at)redfin(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #6200: standby bad memory allocations on SELECT
Date: 2012-01-31 05:05:56
Message-ID: 25481.1327986356@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
I wrote:
> Hm.  The stack trace is definitive that it's finding the bad data in a
> tuple that it's trying to print to the client, not in an index.

BTW, after a bit more reflection it occurs to me that it's not so much
that the data is necessarily *bad*, as that it seemingly doesn't match
the tuple descriptor that the backend's trying to interpret it with.
(In particular, the reported symptom would be consistent with finding
a small integer constant at a place where the descriptor expects to find
a variable-length field.)  So that opens up a different line of thought
about how those could get out of sync on a standby.  Are you in the
habit of issuing ALTER TABLE commands to add/delete/change columns on
these tables?  In fact, is there any DDL whatsoever going on around the
time these failures happen?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Dharmendra GoyalDate: 2012-01-31 07:34:36
Subject: Re: BUG #6404: postgres account not created during unattended install
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-01-31 04:59:16
Subject: Re: BUG #6200: standby bad memory allocations on SELECT

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group