From: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, Tim Mickelson <tim_mickelson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Really strange foreign key constraint problem blocking delete |
Date: | 2014-10-05 15:06:06 |
Message-ID: | 54315E5E.9030902@squeakycode.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 10/05/2014 10:00 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 10/05/2014 07:37 AM, Tim Mickelson wrote:
>> Sorry about that, the precise version is: "PostgreSQL 9.1.9 on
>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat
>> 4.4.7-3), 64-bit"
>
> Well 9.1 is at .14 now, so on general principles it would be a good idea to upgrade. That being said I do not see anything in the release notes from .10 to .14 that applies. Though to be truthful I did not read every line. Before upgrading you could try what Andy suggested which is to REINDEX(tmpautenticazione). See here for the REINDEX caveats, and a way to INDEX CONCURRENTLY:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/sql-reindex.html
>
>>
>>
I thought .11 sounded like a good candidate. Especially the part:
allowing tuples to escape freezing, causing those rows to become invisible once 2^31 transactions have elapsed
-Andy
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shingo horiuchi | 2014-10-06 05:38:16 | How does PostgerSQL planner decide driving table |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2014-10-05 15:00:19 | Re: Really strange foreign key constraint problem blocking delete |