From: | "Henry - Zen Search SA" <henry(at)zen(dot)co(dot)za> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: "out of balance" result on select from suspected index corruption [RESOLVED] |
Date: | 2008-07-01 07:37:23 |
Message-ID: | 94036df23862352a027ee08ed6a717bb.squirrel@zenmail.co.za |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, June 30, 2008 9:45 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Henry - Zen Search SA" <henry(at)zen(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
>> The problem was this: a silly SQL error (misuse of OR and missing
>> parentheses) resulted in a massive result set which resulted in OOM - if
>> the select is run manually (no funny "out of balance" strings).
>
>> If it's run in a function (which uses a FOR loop, which uses implicit
>> cursors), then the "out of balance" string is returned for the TEXT
>> column
>> almost immediately.
>
> Is it possible the "out of balance" is actually an expected result from
> the query --- ie, it's in a table somewhere? In the first case you'd
> not see it because of the OOM failure, but with a cursor you'd be able
> to process (at least some of) the query output ...
<erp> :p
Thou hast a sharp mind, Master Tom. Just how *do* you get to develop
_and_ answer stupid q's on this list?
"out of balance" seemed like such a dirty sneaky system error it HAD to
come from pg... My synapses fired happily along that rail and I could see
nothing else; not even the obvious.
/stomps off to go shout at the app people for wasting his time and causing
additional loss of already diminished hair.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2008-07-01 07:45:41 | Re: FTS question |
Previous Message | Damjan Rems | 2008-07-01 06:05:06 | FTS question |