Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

From: Ed Loehr <ELOEHR(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pg-gen <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)
Date: 1999-12-22 07:42:03
Message-ID: 386080CB.224292CD@austin.rr.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > > I think it is harmless. To fix it properly requires a
> > > very sophisticated write-ahead log that is scheduled for 7.1 in about
> > > six months.
> >
> > This problem stops my psql dead in its tracks for related queries even across new
> > sessions. Requires a rebuild of indices before any queries work with the related
> > tables/functions, and since I don't know which one to rebuild (die, horsey, die), I
> > might as well rebuild them all. In production mode, that means stopping user access due
> > to the possibility of violating unique constraints enforced by unique indices. That
> > means downtime, which would makes moi persona non grata. But maybe my assumptions are
> > incorrect or I didn't understand what you mean by harmless?
>
> Maybe other people can chime in here. Why are you getting the inital
> crashes?

I don't know. My only suspect right now is that it may be the residual effects of having
parameter mismatches in 'RAISE' statements in PL/pgSQL. In any event, I'll try to collect
some data for troubleshooting...

Cheers,
Ed Loehr

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Lo 1999-12-22 08:03:29 Re: [INTERFACES] Announce: PostgreSQL-6.5.3 binaries available forWindows NT
Previous Message Tusar 1999-12-22 06:31:09 Re: [INTERFACES] Announce: PostgreSQL-6.5.3 binaries available for Windows NT