Re: "out of balance" result on select from suspected index corruption [RESOLVED]

From: "Henry - Zen Search SA" <henry(at)zen(dot)co(dot)za>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: "out of balance" result on select from suspected index corruption [RESOLVED]
Date: 2008-07-01 07:37:23
Message-ID: 94036df23862352a027ee08ed6a717bb.squirrel@zenmail.co.za
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, June 30, 2008 9:45 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Henry - Zen Search SA" <henry(at)zen(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
>> The problem was this: a silly SQL error (misuse of OR and missing
>> parentheses) resulted in a massive result set which resulted in OOM - if
>> the select is run manually (no funny "out of balance" strings).
>
>> If it's run in a function (which uses a FOR loop, which uses implicit
>> cursors), then the "out of balance" string is returned for the TEXT
>> column
>> almost immediately.
>
> Is it possible the "out of balance" is actually an expected result from
> the query --- ie, it's in a table somewhere? In the first case you'd
> not see it because of the OOM failure, but with a cursor you'd be able
> to process (at least some of) the query output ...

<erp> :p
Thou hast a sharp mind, Master Tom. Just how *do* you get to develop
_and_ answer stupid q's on this list?

"out of balance" seemed like such a dirty sneaky system error it HAD to
come from pg... My synapses fired happily along that rail and I could see
nothing else; not even the obvious.

/stomps off to go shout at the app people for wasting his time and causing
additional loss of already diminished hair.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Bartunov 2008-07-01 07:45:41 Re: FTS question
Previous Message Damjan Rems 2008-07-01 06:05:06 FTS question