Re: Notice in logg file

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: grzegorz(dot)przezdziecki(at)crn(dot)pl, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Notice in logg file
Date: 2000-06-13 00:13:16
Message-ID: 200006130013.UAA11952@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom, we fixed this, right?

> grzegorz(dot)przezdziecki(at)crn(dot)pl writes:
> > PostgreSQL 6.5.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc 2.7.2.3
>
> > Apr 28 03:06:05 ziutek logger: NOTICE: Index
> > tb_klienci_id_klienci_key: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (10652)
> > IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (10634)
>
> This can happen if there are other transactions open while the VACUUM
> runs. It's not real critical --- the cross-check between index and
> table tuple count is just not bright enough to consider the possibility
> of "zombie" tuples (killed, but not dead yet because there are other
> transactions that can still see them). I'd like to improve the cross-
> check so it doesn't emit bogus notices, but haven't figured out how yet.
>
> If you see it even when the VACUUM is the only transaction running,
> then you might be well advised to drop and re-create the index.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-13 00:14:00 Re: [ANNOUNCE] Delphi's components for direct access to PostgreSQL
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-13 00:08:15 Re: memory management suggestion