Re: Could not open relation with OID (table partitioning issue?)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "mark" <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "'bakkiya'" <bakkiya(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Could not open relation with OID (table partitioning issue?)
Date: 2010-11-22 15:09:46
Message-ID: 26145.1290438586@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

"mark" <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't know if this is a bug and if so, if it fixed in the most current
> patch. (I don't see anything in the release notes that make think so though
> however).

At least one reason for this type of problem was fixed in 8.4.

commit d4a363cdf2b426bbf6c401543b8286ad86ca9bd5
Author: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Date: Tue May 12 03:11:02 2009 +0000

Modify find_inheritance_children() and find_all_inheritors() to add the
ability to lock relations as they scan pg_inherits, and to ignore any
relations that have disappeared by the time we get lock on them. This
makes uses of these functions safe against concurrent DROP operations
on child tables: we will effectively ignore any just-dropped child,
rather than possibly throwing an error as in recent bug report from
Thomas Johansson (and similar past complaints). The behavior should
not change otherwise, since the code was acquiring those same locks
anyway, just a little bit later.

An exception is LockTableCommand(), which is still behaving unsafely;
but that seems to require some more discussion before we change it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Broersma 2010-11-22 17:20:00 Re: Change Data Capture
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-22 14:43:07 Re: Null values detected as 0 value