| From: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Can't pg_dumpall, claims database exists twice |
| Date: | 2005-03-28 18:08:54 |
| Message-ID: | BE6D9646.1F43E%scott_ribe@killerbytes.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Now how the heck did that happen? That's not some kind of weird UPDATE
> failure, because the rows have different OIDs ... it seems like the
> newer row must have been explicitly inserted, and it should surely have
> been blocked by the unique index on datname. Are there subdirectories
> under $PGDATA/base for both of those OIDs?
So I guess I should also ask if there's anything I could do to give you more
information about how this might have happened? Would it be helpful to
brute-force rename the bogus entry and submit a dump of the schema?
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe(at)nospam(dot)killerbytes(dot)com
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 665-7007 voice
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-03-28 18:40:45 | Re: LWM 2004 Readers' Choice Nomination |
| Previous Message | Scott Ribe | 2005-03-28 18:05:40 | Re: Can't pg_dumpall, claims database exists twice |