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

Re: [JDBC] Possible large object bug?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joe Shevland" <shevlandj(at)kpi(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Possible large object bug?
Date: 2001-03-27 01:00:54
Message-ID: 2580.985654854@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackerspgsql-jdbc
"Joe Shevland" <shevlandj(at)kpi(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Semi-topical I hope ;)

Completely irrelevant to JDBC as far as I can see.  I've redirected to
pghackers.

> NOTICE:  Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/115: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
> ...
> NOTICE:  Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/6087: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
> NOTICE:  Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/6111: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
> NOTICE:  Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/6112: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
> NOTICE:  Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/6136: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
> NOTICE:  Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/6137: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
> pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
>         This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
>         before or while processing the request.

Ugh.  It looks like something has clobbered your pg_attribute file.
Was this the first sign of trouble?  Can you provide an "od -x" dump of
that file?  (It'd be $PGDATA/base/DB2OID/1249; you'll need to look in
pg_database to determine the OID of db2.)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mathijs BrandsDate: 2001-03-27 01:04:50
Subject: Regression test on FBSD 3.3 & 4.2, IRIX 6.5 (was Re: Re: Call for platforms)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-03-27 00:53:44
Subject: Re: Re: Call for platforms

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Marcin KowalskiDate: 2001-03-27 09:03:07
Subject: pg_dump potential bug
Previous:From: Joe ShevlandDate: 2001-03-27 00:37:35
Subject: Possible large object bug?

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Marko KreenDate: 2001-03-27 11:04:26
Subject: Re: RE: Compiling
Previous:From: Joe ShevlandDate: 2001-03-27 00:37:35
Subject: Possible large object bug?

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