From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Bugs List <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Juris Krumins <juriskr(at)komin(dot)lv> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] cache lookup of relation 165058647 failed |
Date: | 2004-05-05 16:32:39 |
Message-ID: | 40991727.3060405@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-general |
Sean Chittenden wrote:
>> I'v find out that this error occurs in:
>> dependency.c file
>>
>> 2004-04-26 11:09:34 ERROR: dependency.c 1621: cache lookup of relation
>> 149064743 failed
>> 2004-04-26 11:09:34 ERROR: Relation "tmp_table1" does not exist
>> 2004-04-26 11:09:34 ERROR: Relation "tmp_table1" does not exist
>>
>> in getRelationDescription(StringInfo buffer, Oid relid) function.
>>
>> Any ideas what can cause this errors.
>
> <aol>Me too.</aol>
>
> But, I am suspecting that it's a race condition with the new background
> writer code. I've started testing a new database design and was able
> to reproduce this on my laptop nearly 90% of the time, but could only
> reproduce it about 10% of the time on my production databases until I
> figured out what the difference was, fsync.
temp tables don't use the shared buffer cache, how can this be related
to the BG writer?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-05-05 17:31:01 | Re: Bug in optimizer |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-05 13:09:28 | Re: Killing the backends |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | lnd | 2004-05-05 16:35:33 | Re: Embedded SQL inherently faster than others? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-05 16:31:21 | Re: vacuumdb is failing with NUMBER OF INDEX TUPLES NOT THE SAME AS HEAP |