Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
Date: 1999-12-29 19:09:00
Message-ID: 199912291909.OAA07158@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> pg_proc_prosrc_index is the problem, eh? I'll bet a nickel that you're
> seeing still another manifestation of btree's problems with oversized
> index entries. (See recent thread 'Error "vacuum pg_proc"'.)
>
> Check to see if you have any functions whose definitions exceed 2700
> bytes, eg with
> select proname from pg_proc where length(prosrc) > 2700;
> If so, you need to rewrite them to be smaller, perhaps by breaking
> them into multiple functions.
>
> 7.0 should fix this problem, but it's a real hazard in 6.5.

Wow, do we need that 7.0 release!

--
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-12-29 19:51:19 Using aggregate in HAVING
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-12-29 19:07:32 Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption