Re: pg primary key bug?

From: pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Richard_D_Levine(at)raytheon(dot)com, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg primary key bug?
Date: 2005-02-22 17:20:00
Message-ID: 421B69C0.1070404@t1.unisoftbg.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

Tom Lane wrote:

>pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>I will to ask if it will be possible to start some querys (I do not know
>>the query) exactly before running vacuum full and to save the results in
>>some log file. If it is possible, we will be able to post the results to
>>the list in case of ne problem and to have some start point for
>>reproducing the problem.
>>
>>
>
>Well, you should definitely turn on log_statement across the whole
>installation so that you have a complete record of all SQL commands
>being issued. Make sure the log includes timestamps and PIDs.
>
>I would suggest adding a simple probe for duplicate records to the
>vacuum script. Maybe something like
>
> set enable_indexscan to off;
> select constname,fid,count(*) from a_constants_str
> group by constname,fid having count(*) > 1;
>
>(The indexscan off bit is just paranoia --- I think that an indexscan
>might mask the presence of multiple copies of what's supposedly a unique
>key.) Do this just before and just after the vacuum full command. That
>will at least nail down whether vacuum full is creating the dups, and
>once we see it happen the trace of the day's SQL commands may give some
>ideas where to look.
>
>
Ok, it was my idea.
We will do it and install the script in ~100 servers and will see the
result.

> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
>
regards,
ivan.

In response to

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-02-22 18:04:08 Re: pg primary key bug?
Previous Message pginfo 2005-02-22 16:42:59 Re: pg primary key bug?