Re: [HACKERS] Sequence nexvtal() and initdb/pg_proc problem

On Sun, 23 May 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
[snip - nextval problem]
> Can't duplicate that here --- but it might well be related to your
> busted pg_proc table ...

Indeed that was the problem.

> But evidently that's not always true during initdb. You must be running
> with a very low value of RELSEG_SIZE to have precipitated such a
> problem, however.

Yes, I removed one too many 0's from RELSEG_SIZE to do some testing.
I usually set it to 0x200000 / BLCKSZ for testing segment related things.

> Reasonable fixes would be either to force the appropriate cd during
> initdb, or to find and fix the place that's touching extension segments
> using a relative pathname. But I can't get excited about spending much
> time on it, since the problem will never arise at realistic RELSEG_SIZE
> settings...

It's definately not worth the time right now. I will probably take a
look at this in couple of weeks, since it probably should be checked.

Thanks,
Ole Gjerde