| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bridget Frey <bridget(dot)frey(at)redfin(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Brauwerman <michael(dot)brauwerman(at)redfin(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #6200: standby bad memory allocations on SELECT |
| Date: | 2012-01-31 05:05:56 |
| Message-ID: | 25481.1327986356@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I wrote:
> Hm. The stack trace is definitive that it's finding the bad data in a
> tuple that it's trying to print to the client, not in an index.
BTW, after a bit more reflection it occurs to me that it's not so much
that the data is necessarily *bad*, as that it seemingly doesn't match
the tuple descriptor that the backend's trying to interpret it with.
(In particular, the reported symptom would be consistent with finding
a small integer constant at a place where the descriptor expects to find
a variable-length field.) So that opens up a different line of thought
about how those could get out of sync on a standby. Are you in the
habit of issuing ALTER TABLE commands to add/delete/change columns on
these tables? In fact, is there any DDL whatsoever going on around the
time these failures happen?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dharmendra Goyal | 2012-01-31 07:34:36 | Re: BUG #6404: postgres account not created during unattended install |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-31 04:59:16 | Re: BUG #6200: standby bad memory allocations on SELECT |