Re: vacuum failure...

> "Michael Richards" <michael(at)fastmail(dot)ca> writes:
>> ERROR: No one parent tuple was found
>
> Postgres version?
>
> AFAIR, all known causes of this are fixed in 7.2.4.

Oops, sorry:
version
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 7.2.3 on i386-unknown-freebsd4.5, compiled by GCC 2.95.3

If I upgrade to 7.2.4 will that fix the problem or just fix a bug
that would cause that problem?

-Michael
_________________________________________________________________
http://fastmail.ca/ - Fast Secure Web Email for Canadians
>From pgsql-sql-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org Tue Feb 11 11:29:52 2003
X-Original-To: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F4F475A45
for <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:29:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E606C475843
for <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:29:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl(at)localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1BGTt5u026094;
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:29:55 -0500 (EST)
To: "Michael Richards" <michael(at)fastmail(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuum failure...
In-reply-to: <3E49246C(dot)000009(dot)72557(at)ns(dot)interchange(dot)ca>
References: <3E49246C(dot)000009(dot)72557(at)ns(dot)interchange(dot)ca>
Comments: In-reply-to "Michael Richards" <michael(at)fastmail(dot)ca>
message dated "Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:27:24 -0500"
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:29:54 -0500
Message-ID: <26093(dot)1044980994(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200302/218
X-Sequence-Number: 11616

"Michael Richards" <michael(at)fastmail(dot)ca> writes:
> If I upgrade to 7.2.4 will that fix the problem or just fix a bug
> that would cause that problem?

It should make the problem go away --- the on-disk configuration is
legitimate, it's just VACUUM that's getting confused. (Unless you
have some new variant of this issue that we haven't seen before.)

regards, tom lane