From: | Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption |
Date: | 1999-12-29 21:00:08 |
Message-ID: | 386A7658.13933C0A@albourne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> pg_proc_prosrc_index is the problem, eh? I'll bet a nickel that you're
> seeing still another manifestation of btree's problems with oversized
> index entries. (See recent thread 'Error "vacuum pg_proc"'.)
>
> Check to see if you have any functions whose definitions exceed 2700
> bytes, eg with
> select proname from pg_proc where length(prosrc) > 2700;
> If so, you need to rewrite them to be smaller, perhaps by breaking
> them into multiple functions.
Yep, I've got two of those. I saw the message about lengths in indexes,
but howcome this is relevant for procedures? I thought it would only be an
index on name and a pointer into pg_proc? Just asking because I want to
understand how this works.
I'll rewrite them and see whether that fixes it. Thanks a lot for the
help!
Adriaan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-12-29 21:20:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: subquery performance and EXISTS |
Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 1999-12-29 20:57:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Using aggregate in HAVING |