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

Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM ANALYZE Problem

From: James Hughes <jamesh(at)interpath(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Vadim B(dot) Mikheev" <vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, wieck(at)sapserv(dot)debis(dot)de
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM ANALYZE Problem
Date: 1998-03-20 02:17:36
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.3.93.980319211059.12982A-100000@xport.bluewall.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 15 Mar 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

: > 
: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
: > --------------A99EE0A2D8F4D665C5BF3957
: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
: > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
: > 
: > James Hughes wrote:
: > > 
: > > After poking arround some more, I found that the "vacuum analyze" is
: > > causing problems with the "<" and ">" operators. The "> 0" in the SELECT
: > > for "/d <table>" and "/dS" commands in psql cause the error.
: > > 
: > > I verified that any simple query using the "<" or ">" operators fail
: > > with the same message...
: > > 
: > >         ERROR:  fmgr_info: function 0: cache lookup failed
: > > 
: > >                         ...after using the "vacuum analyse" command.
: > > But, only after vacuuming any relation that was created and populated by
: > > me. Vacumming system catalogs poses no problems.
: > 
: > Well, I found that this problem was caused by selfuncs.c:gethilokey():
: > 
: >     static ScanKeyData key[3] = {
: >         {0, Anum_pg_statistic_starelid, F_OIDEQ},
: >         {0, Anum_pg_statistic_staattnum, F_INT2EQ},
: >         {0, Anum_pg_statistic_staop, F_OIDEQ}
: > 
: > : skankeys are hardcoded without call to ScanKeyEntryInitialize() =>
: > without initialization of sk_func.fn_oid required, I assume, by
: > new PL support code. Patch for this place follows...
: > One should check all places where ScanKeyData is used.
: > Jan, could you do this ?
: > 
: > (Oh, hell! I got this ERROR while testing subselect and spent so many time
: > to fix this problem...)
: 
: I assume we can consider this item closed.
: 

The problem on my system was fixed by the patch. 


-James



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-03-20 02:47:48
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tables >2GB
Previous:From: Michael J SchoutDate: 1998-03-19 20:50:08
Subject: Bug in DBD::Pg v0.69?

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