> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Anyone seen this message or know what it means?
> > > > >
> > > > > NOTICE: Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071) IS
> > > > > NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)
> > > >
> > > > Drop index and recreate. Next release will be more specific in error
> > > > message.
> > >
> > > I have no idea *which* index to drop/recreate, and I have hundreds of them.
> > > Ouch.
> > That will also be fixed.
> I thought that the index in question was, in fact,
> pg_proc_prosrc_index in the above example. If that's the
> case, then is it possible for Ed to rebuild a system index?
> The only absolutely surefire way is to dump/reload, isn't
> it? Maybe somewhere someone is doing a heap_insert(),
> heap_replace(), et al, and an event is happening which is
> causing the code to not get to the
Signe me up as a dope. Yes, it is clearly that index. I was thinking
of another place that has this problem, the famous "My bits moved off
the end of the world" error message. This one is clearly the
The only way to fix that is to initdb, I think. I would recommend
pg_upgrade, after removing the disable from the pg_upgrade script that
was added in 6.5. That will fix it. Not sure how it got that way,
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1999-12-22 18:30:57|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Interbase replacement|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Holbrook||Date: 1999-12-22 17:31:03|
|Subject: [GENERAL] Stored procedures|