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

Re: [GENERAL] cache lookup of relation 165058647 failed

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-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 #


In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Gaetano MendolaDate: 2004-05-05 17:31:01
Subject: Re: Bug in optimizer
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-05-05 13:09:28
Subject: Re: Killing the backends

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: lndDate: 2004-05-05 16:35:33
Subject: Re: Embedded SQL inherently faster than others?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-05-05 16:31:21
Subject: Re: vacuumdb is failing with NUMBER OF INDEX TUPLES NOT THE SAME AS HEAP

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