Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?