Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
Date: 1999-12-29 21:59:04
Message-ID: 4945.946504744@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com> writes:
>> 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.

Bingo ...

> I saw the message about lengths in indexes,
> but howcome this is relevant for procedures?

In 6.5 (and before), there's an index on the prosrc field of pg_proc,
ie, the definition of the procedure. There's not any real good reason
to have such an index, so we've removed it for 7.0 ... but in 6.5 it's
there and it creates problems if you have long procedure definitions :-(

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-12-29 22:25:47 Re: [HACKERS] Re: subquery performance and EXISTS
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-12-29 21:20:38 Re: [HACKERS] Re: subquery performance and EXISTS