From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: assertion failure 9.3.4 |
Date: | 2014-04-17 02:23:28 |
Message-ID: | 534F3B20.6010900@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/16/2014 07:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm not quite clear on why the third query, the one in ri_PerformCheck,
>> is invoking a sequence.
> It's not --- SeqNext is the next-tuple function for a sequential scan.
> Nothing to do with sequences.
>
> Now, it *is* worth wondering why the heck a query on the table's primary
> key is using a seqscan and not an indexscan. Maybe the planner thinks
> there are just a few rows in the table? But the stack trace seems
> unexceptional other than that.
>
> I'm wondering if the combination of autoexplain and pg_stat_statements
> is causing trouble.
>
> Yeah, it would be real nice to see a self-contained test case for this.
>
>
Well, that might be hard to put together, but I did try running without
pg_stat_statements and auto_explain loaded and the error did not occur.
Not sure where that gets us in terms of deciding on a culprit.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-17 02:28:32 | Re: assertion failure 9.3.4 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-17 01:20:38 | Re: WIP patch for Todo Item : Provide fallback_application_name in contrib/pgbench, oid2name, and dblink |