From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ralph Graulich <maillist(at)shauny(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: max relations in a single database |
Date: | 2002-07-21 13:56:46 |
Message-ID: | 18612.1027259806@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Ralph Graulich <maillist(at)shauny(dot)de> writes:
> While attempting to port an existing application things started to fail
> randomly, like 'relation xyz not found' etc. - It took me a while to
> figure out, that things starting to behave strangely, once I define more
> than 254 relations in one database.
There is no such limit. Instead, I conclude that there is something
seriously broken about your installation.
I would suggest trying a system-catalog REINDEX (read the REINDEX man
page about how to do this procedure; it's a bit involved). Then see
if you can run pg_dumpall without errors --- if so, initdb and reload.
In practically every case we've seen recently of behavior as weird as
that, the problem eventually traced to hardware failures; for example,
bad RAM leading to index corruption. I'd suggest running any diagnostic
programs you can find. (badblocks and memtest86 have been spoken of
highly in the lists.)
Given that you are using a dual-CPU machine, it might also be worth
looking at whether your kernel version has any known SMP-handling bugs.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Woodcraft | 2002-07-21 14:05:14 | Can I use row-level locks to sequence READ COMMITTED transactions? |
Previous Message | Ralph Graulich | 2002-07-21 13:00:45 | max relations in a single database |