| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alessandro Aste <alessandro(dot)aste(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: cache lookup failed for attribute 1 of relation XXXXXX |
| Date: | 2018-07-19 15:39:45 |
| Message-ID: | 839.1532014785@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
[ please keep the list cc'd for the archives' sake ]
Alessandro Aste <alessandro(dot)aste(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Hello Tom, thanks for your reply:
> SELECT * FROM pg_class WHERE OID = 2223152859 ;
> (0 rows)
> I'm not aware of any DDL at that time.
Hm. Well, that OID was definitely there when pg_dump looked, and
it's not there now, so something changed --- though we can't prove
it changed concurrently.
In any case, I'd bet that if we ran this to ground it would prove to be a
concurrent-DDL issue. pg_dump tries to protect itself against concurrent
DDL, but for assorted architectural reasons the protection is not 100%;
sometimes you can get odd failures like this, essentially due to "clock
skew" between pg_dump's view of the catalogs and the server's view of the
catalogs. As long as it works on retry, I wouldn't worry too much about
it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alessandro Aste | 2018-07-19 16:07:16 | Re: cache lookup failed for attribute 1 of relation XXXXXX |
| Previous Message | Ron | 2018-07-19 15:06:28 | Re: Is it ok to run vacuum full verbose command for live database for the tables which has more dead tuples? |