From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane), pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, mathieu(at)dezutter(dot)org ("Mathieu De Zutter") |
Subject: | Re: BUG #4913: Row missing from primary key index |
Date: | 2009-07-09 23:48:11 |
Message-ID: | 87y6qxctac.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Notice that the two rows seem entirely independent (different
>> xmin). The OP stated that his app generally does single-row
>> inserts (with some exceptions not relevent here); however, we
>> found a nearby row which shares the xmin:
Tom> How is the timestamp column generated? I'm wondering what we
Tom> can deduce from the fact that the timestamps are all different.
Tom> It's evidently not now().
(answering this one since the OP has probably gone for the night)
My understanding is that it is now(), but the OP should be able to
give a definitive answer. (Yes, this does raise some questions about
why it appears to have gone backwards at some points.)
Tom> One thing that seems odd is that the xids are kinda small. Did
Tom> the system just recently have a wraparound event?
The system was recently dump/restored from a different box. The
failing rows are all new inserts since the restore.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-09 23:56:41 | Re: BUG #4913: Row missing from primary key index |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-07-09 23:21:53 | Re: BUG #4913: Row missing from primary key index |