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
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 #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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