From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: failed to re-find parent key |
Date: | 2004-01-14 03:14:40 |
Message-ID: | 1074050080.1150.99.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 21:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
> > I can't recreate it either, it is only happening on my customers
> > machines, which are using an older version of redhat (7.2) and gcc 2.96
>
> > Is it possible these versions are relevant to the issue?
>
> Hmm. Compiler bug maybe? I can't recall if gcc 2.96 had a good
> reputation or not. You might try backing off the optimization level
> and see if the behavior changes. Also see if there are any errata
> available for that compiler package.
Thanks for the advice, I'm going to do more tests to try to isolate it
>
> Also, is this just one machine or several? If only one, I'd try
> reindexing that index and see if that helps.
Actually the hack checks for oids, and doesn't make the index, if there
isn't an oid in the table, so I tried it with a table without oids, and
it still occurs.
Thanks for the replies; I'll post if I find something relevant.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 1467551
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-01-14 03:14:46 | Re: What's planned for 7.5? |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-01-14 02:55:11 | Re: failed to re-find parent key |