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 20:04:34
Message-ID: 28287.957470674@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:
> Hadn't thought of that ... but ... and you aren't going to like this
> ... if I delete/vacuum/insert/vacuum ... INDEX TUPLES increases by 1, HEAP
> increases by one ... I'm up to 3->4 now, and would go 4->5 if I were to do
> it again ...

That definitely sounds like VACUUM thinks there's an old open transaction
somewhere and so it doesn't want to clean out the dead tuples.

I believe we have a mechanism for deciding that an old transaction must
have aborted (it involves looking to see if any active backend claims to
be running that transaction). But I wonder whether that mechanism is
being used when VACUUM decides whether it can clean out a dead tuple or
not. Vadim?

> Don't know ... one of hte problems I'm having with my FreeBSD machine
> right now is that, for some reason, setproctitle() isn't working, so all
> my backends look the same 'postmaster' and its start up options :(

Now you know how the other half lives ;-).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Inoue 2000-05-04 21:13:18 RE: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2000-05-04 19:43:17 Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?