| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: assertion failure 9.3.4 |
| Date: | 2014-04-16 23:19:44 |
| Message-ID: | 18044.1397690384@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-04-16 23:22:59 | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-16 23:18:02 | Re: Misaligned BufferDescriptors causing major performance problems on AMD |