| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |