Re: Cache lookup failed for relation, when trying to DROP

From: Mark Gibson <gibsonm(at)cromwell(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cache lookup failed for relation, when trying to DROP
Date: 2004-10-06 15:32:13
Message-ID: 388e3729343d41ca4b01fed9c099fe774164101d@cromwell.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Gibson <gibsonm(at)cromwell(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
>
>>I kept getting the following error:
>>ERROR: cache lookup failed for relation 4667548
>
>
> This implies that something someplace still has a link to the table with
> that OID. You could do "\set VERBOSITY verbose" so that the code
> location the error occurs at gets reported; that might be enough
> information to guess what sort of thing is linking to the table.
> Or you could just dig through the system catalogs looking for 4667548
> in an OID column that links to pg_class.

"\set VERBOSITY verbose" gave me the following:

ERROR: XX000: cache lookup failed for relation 4667548
LOCATION: getRelationDescription, dependency.c:1755

and...

After sticking 4667548 everywhere an oid can be stuck, I've found an
entry in the pg_rewrite table.
It's from a rule I added myself, but I dropped it manually, strange that
is still lurking around.

So, I tried deleting the offending entries from pg_rewrite, and now get:

ERROR: XX000: could not find tuple for rule 5173132
LOCATION: getObjectDescription, dependency.c:1669

I'm guessing I'm gonna have to route through pg_catalog for this and
delete all deps manually, but it this going to be safe?
Would I be better off dumping and restoring the whole database?

--
Mark Gibson <gibsonm |AT| cromwell |DOT| co |DOT| uk>
Web Developer & Database Admin
Cromwell Tools Ltd.
Leicester, England.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message sklassen 2004-10-06 15:35:21 Re: database constraints
Previous Message Michael Fuhr 2004-10-06 15:30:13 Re: Random not so random