From: | Jan Beseda <besedajohn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ERROR: XX000: cache lookup failed for type 75083631 |
Date: | 2022-04-20 20:07:38 |
Message-ID: | CAHaN6DaDeVUZtTZ8KEA_WY0=k_NuTkYqoOmw7ebJQ7k3fbq0+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Tom, Thanks for getting me directions for debugging, but it seems the
devops team fully restored the system snapshot on corrupted instance for
me. If it occurs again I'll reopen/write you as reply here if that's ok.
Cheers, Jan
čt 14. 4. 2022 v 19:24 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:
> Jan Beseda <besedajohn(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm having an issue with dropping a view as shown below:
>
> > DROP VIEW access_group_view;
> > ERROR: XX000: cache lookup failed for type 75083631
> > LOCATION: format_type_internal, format_type.c:152
>
> Does the behavior change if you say CASCADE?
>
> The fact that it's failing in format_type() implies that something is
> trying to print the name of a type, which doesn't seem like a main-line
> activity for DROP VIEW. I am suspicious that pg_depend shows this type
> OID as dependent for some reason on this view, and that the message
> that it was trying to print was complaining about how that dependency
> existed and that you'd need to say CASCADE to make it take. However,
> since format_type() fails, the type OID must not really exist anymore,
> implying that the pg_depend entry is orphaned.
>
> That raises a different set of questions about how it got to be that way.
> But at any rate, what I'd suggest is
>
> 1. Verify that the type OID is wrong:
> select * from pg_type where oid = 75083631;
> If that finds a row then we've got a whole other set of issues.
> (BTW, if you want to be really sure, forcing a seqscan for this
> query or reindexing pg_type could be advisable.)
>
> 2. Check for bogus entries in pg_depend:
> select * from pg_depend where objid = 75083631;
> select * from pg_depend where refobjid = 75083631;
>
> 3. If there's just one hit in pg_depend then it's probably
> safe to delete that row.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ravi Krishna | 2022-04-20 20:31:01 | Re: Are stored procedures/triggers common in your industry |
Previous Message | Tim Clarke | 2022-04-20 19:51:44 | Re: Are stored procedures/triggers common in your industry |