| 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 12:48:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1074084512.1145.102.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ok, that seems to have fixed it, so my next question is how did it get
corrupt?
Dave
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 23:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> My thought was that at this point the indexes on pg_attribute are very
> possibly corrupt, and so just removing whatever initially caused that
> corruption won't necessarily cause the error messages to stop. You
> should reindex pg_attribute to get back into a good state.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 1467551
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-01-14 13:32:19 | Re: VACUUM delay (was Re: What's planned for 7.5?) |
| Previous Message | Mark Cave-Ayland | 2004-01-14 09:54:50 | Re: Suggestions for analyze patch required... |