From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> |
Cc: | Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.3.7, 'cache lookup failed' for a table |
Date: | 2010-05-12 10:19:01 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilO9CpCY7ILkXEGSy5mTX0sqYIZrte9oy-96Og2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Alban Hertroys
<dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> wrote:
> On 12 May 2010, at 12:01, Glyn Astill wrote:
>
>> Did you not mention that this server was a slony slave at some point though?
>>
>> Just because you have removed slony, and the error comes from postgresql itself does not mean the corruption was not caused by misuse of slony.
>
> Indeed. I wonder if "when we ere adding/removing slony to the system for Nth time (due to it sometimes going out of sync)" may be caused by that as well.
>
ok, so either upgrade to newer version of slony, or drop all tables,
and recreate them every time slony is removed and readded to the
database.
And I guess the only reason postgresql doesn't like it, is due to
slony's behavior.
thanks guys.
--
GJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Koichi Suzuki | 2010-05-12 10:21:10 | Bug-fix and new feature of pg_lesslog is released |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-05-12 10:14:29 | Re: Documentation availability as a single page of text |