From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ed Loehr <ELOEHR(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com> |
Cc: | pg-gen <pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070) |
Date: | 1999-12-22 05:49:13 |
Message-ID: | 199912220549.AAA29484@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > > That will also be fixed.
> > >
> > > Do you mean to say the offending index will be auto-corrected on the fly? That
> > > would be almost as good as preventing the root cause in the first place...
> >
> > No, it just reports the index name. In 7.1, I think this problem will
> > go away, if not in 7.0.
>
> Is the problem well-understood? Is there a place where I can read up on it? This
> kind of instability is painful enough to get me thinking about trying to hack my
> distribution...
I believe it has to do with extra index tuples showing up in the index
that are not in the heap. When the count's don't match, the problem is
reported. I believe it only happens when the system crashes during an
index update. I think it is harmless. To fix it properly requires a
very sophisticated write-ahead log that is scheduled for 7.1 in about
six months.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ed Loehr | 1999-12-22 06:04:38 | Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070) |
Previous Message | Ed Loehr | 1999-12-22 05:48:08 | Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070) |