| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |