Re: Getting rid of duplicate tables.

Tom Lane wrote:

>Jared Carr <jared(at)89glass(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>> Item 2 -- Length: 148 Offset: 6860 (0x1acc) Flags: USED
>> XID: min (46034931) CMIN|XMAX: 2 CMAX|XVAC: 0
>> Block Id: 27 linp Index: 2 Attributes: 23 Size: 28
>> infomask: 0x2910 (HASOID|XMIN_COMMITTED|XMAX_INVALID|UPDATED)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>> Item 43 -- Length: 148 Offset: 8044 (0x1f6c) Flags: USED
>> XID: min (8051642) CMIN|XMAX: 46034931 CMAX|XVAC: 2
>> Block Id: 27 linp Index: 2 Attributes: 23 Size: 28
>> infomask: 0x2910 (HASOID|XMIN_COMMITTED|XMAX_INVALID|UPDATED)
>>
>>
>
>Well, there's the smoking gun ... somebody marked (27,2) as
>XMIN_COMMITTED, showing that they thought 46034931 was committed, while
>someone else marked (27,43) as XMAX_INVALID, showing that they thought
>46034931 was aborted. So we have some kind of very-infrequent
>breakage in transaction commit-state lookup. Or a hardware problem,
>but I suspect we are looking at a bug.
>
>Could you check out what pg_clog has for transaction 46034931?
>This would be pg_clog/002B (which dates your problem to Dec 29 BTW),
>byte at offset 39BFC hex or 236540 decimal. I forget which way the
>bits run within the byte but will look it up if you can get me the
>value of that byte.
>
>
Here is the appropriate "line" (line is used *very* loosely there)

00039BF0 04 10 00 00 44 00 14 44 50 00 10 01 00 40 04 40 (dot)(dot)(dot)(dot)D(dot)(dot)DP(dot)(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)(dot)@

39BFC = 0

Jared Carr