Re: PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

From: Bob Ippolito <bob(at)redivi(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption
Date: 2005-11-22 04:17:39
Message-ID: 54B01BB8-B0C2-4AB5-BA97-4A5DE26CD939@redivi.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Nov 21, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bob Ippolito <bob(at)redivi(dot)com> writes:
>> I don't touch pg_class at all... this is what I'm doing (over and
>> over again).
>
>> -- clone_table is almost always a no-op, but once a day it creates a
>> new table
>> SELECT clone_table('ping', 'ping_%s', '')
>> SELECT drop_ping_constraints('ping_%s')
>> -- stuff that doesn't effect DDL
>> SELECT add_ping_constraints('ping_%s')
>
> Hm, do the drop/add constraint functions get executed even when
> clone_table decides not to make a new table? If so, that would
> probably
> explain the pattern I'm seeing in the dump of many updates of the
> pg_class row.

Yes, they do. The constraints are there for constraint exclusion.

> This still doesn't give us a hint why the row disappeared, but
> maybe we
> can try running these functions for awhile and see if anyone can
> reproduce a failure.

If it matters, I have had the same code running on Bizgres 0.7.4 for
quite some time with no issues at all. I may just have to migrate
the test server to Bizgres 0.8 if we can't figure out why PostgreSQL
8.1.0 choked here.

-bob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2005-11-22 07:07:48 Re: MERGE vs REPLACE
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2005-11-22 03:59:46 Re: Use of 8192 as BLCKSZ in xlog.c