Re: [HACKERS] Re: ERROR: index_rescan: invalid amrescan regproc ???

From: Brian P Millett <bpm(at)ec-group(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>, postgres <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: ERROR: index_rescan: invalid amrescan regproc ???
Date: 1999-04-26 14:18:38
Message-ID: 372475BE.9EBD6CFC@ec-group.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Brian P Millett wrote:
> >> At this point I get a SQLException: "Fastpath: index_rescan: invalid
> >> amrescan regproc"
>
> > This looks like something in the backend has died while a fastpath
> > function was being used. I'll see if I can recreate it here.
>
> Just to save you repeating the look-around I just did: that's
> coming out of backend/access/index/indexam.c, and it's apparently
> complaining that a pg_am table row has a null amrescan field.
> That shouldn't be true of any of the pg_am rows in a correct
> installation.
>
> Brian, what does 'select * from pg_am' show? Did you do an initdb

> while installing the 6.5 snapshot you're using?

No I did not. :-( I had done everything else but that. Sorry.

I did remove the old & do an "initdb", "createdb test", then reran the :
java -classpath $MYCLASSPATH example.ImageViewer jdbc:postgresql:test bpm
foo

Then I got the following SQLexception.

ERROR: index_beginscan: invalid ambeginscan regproc

Then I did the
test=> select * from pg_am;
amname|amowner|amkind|amstrategies|amsupport|amgettuple |aminsert
|amdelete |amgetattr|amsetlock|amsettid|amfreetuple|ambeginscan
|amrescan |amendscan |ammarkpos |amrestrpos |amopen|amclose|ambuild
|amcreate|amdestroy
------+-------+------+------------+---------+------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+-----------+-------------+----------+-----------+-----------+------------+------+-------+---------+--------+---------

rtree | 159|o | 8| 3|rtgettuple |rtinsert
|rtdelete |- |- |- |- |rtbeginscan
|rtrescan |rtendscan |rtmarkpos |rtrestrpos |- |- |rtbuild
|- |-
btree | 159|o | 5| 1|btgettuple |btinsert
|btdelete |- |- |- |- |btbeginscan
|btrescan |btendscan |btmarkpos |btrestrpos |- |- |btbuild
|- |-
hash | 159|o | 1|
1|hashgettuple|hashinsert|hashdelete|- |- |-
|-
|hashbeginscan|hashrescan|hashendscan|hashmarkpos|hashrestrpos|-
|- |hashbuild|- |-
gist | 159|o | 100|
7|gistgettuple|gistinsert|gistdelete|- |- |-
|-
|gistbeginscan|gistrescan|gistendscan|gistmarkpos|gistrestrpos|-
|- |gistbuild|- |-
(4 rows)

Thanks.

--
Brian Millett
Enterprise Consulting Group "Heaven can not exist,
(314) 205-9030 If the family is not eternal"
bpm(at)ec-group(dot)com F. Ballard Washburn

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 1999-04-26 14:38:05 Re: [HACKERS] It would be nice if this could be fixed...
Previous Message José Soares 1999-04-26 13:40:43 psql bug ?