| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Randy Isbell <jisbell(at)cisco(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #3110: Online Backup introduces Duplicate OIDs |
| Date: | 2007-03-07 21:54:45 |
| Message-ID: | 22854.1173304485@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Randy Isbell <jisbell(at)cisco(dot)com> writes:
> Here you go:
> SELECT
> ctid,xmin,xmax,cmin,cmax,oid,*
Thanks. This is real interesting, because none of the rows have
xmax/cmax set, so it doesn't appear that they were meant to have been
updated out of existence.
> For the at_dns table, it appears one column (ac_soa_serial) changes.
Does that correspond to something your application does, ie UPDATE
ac_soa_serial to a new value without changing anything else? I'm trying
to guess if the duplicates arose by means of a misfiring UPDATE, or if
they were independent insertions. Is it plausible that two rows that
are the same except for ac_soa_serial would be inserted by your app?
If the latter, a possible theory is that the OID counter is somehow
being rolled back by the dump/reload process.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-03-07 22:11:51 | Re: BUG #3110: Online Backup introduces Duplicate OIDs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-07 16:34:04 | Re: BUG #3110: Online Backup introduces Duplicate OIDs |