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

Re: [GENERAL] More details on Database corruption

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu (Thomas G(dot) Lockhart)
Cc: g(dot)kousi(at)albourne(dot)com, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] More details on Database corruption
Date: 1998-08-24 15:38:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
> > The problem is that the DEFAULT string is
> > not the same length as the column.  Anyone know how to fix this?
> I can put this on my list of things to look at, but I'm not sure why
> this is causing the backend to crash. Is is a problem with storage
> allocation when updating columns? Or is it a problem with storage which
> is already corrupted by the zero-length default character strings?? I
> would think that the default string is not looked at during the update,
> so the damage happened during the initial insert, right?

It is an Assert which is saying, 'If it is a fixed-length field, it
better have the same length.'

Do you want the backtrace line?

Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-08-24 15:42:55
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] minor problem with detecting int64 in configure
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-08-24 15:34:41
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Convert PGconn, PGresult to opaque types?

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: G.Elangovan Date: 1998-08-24 16:20:59
Subject: Maximum field in a table
Previous:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-08-24 15:01:39
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] More details on Database corruption

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group