From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |
Date: | 2000-05-04 17:52:25 |
Message-ID: | 24241.957462745@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> the only group that is in pg_group is:
> template1=> select * from pg_group;
> groname |grosysid|grolist
> -------------+--------+--------------
> trends_acctng| 0|{70,1007,1008}
> (1 row)
> and it was added ~2 weeks ago ...
> i tried deleting and re-adding it this morning, now it says (1 of 2) vs (0
> of 1) ...
Hmm, that's what I was going to suggest doing. I think there must be a
dead tuple in pg_group that VACUUM doesn't want to clean out for some
reason --- maybe it thinks there is still an open transaction somewhere
that could see the tuple as still live? Odd.
Did you try doing a vacuum of pg_group in between deleting and re-adding
the one valid group?
> I had a server lock up the other day running an RC2 code base, which a
> 'truss -p' on postmaster produced nothing ... I did a kill on the server,
> upgraded to the latest code and restarted it, after which this problem
> occur'd ...
Wish you'd taken more careful notes when that happened. What do you
mean by lock up, exactly? Do you know what it was doing just
beforehand?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mitch Vincent | 2000-05-04 17:58:09 | Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? ) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-04 17:42:12 | Re: Is this a bug in the table definition or in PostgreSQL? |