From: | Alessandro Aste <alessandro(dot)aste(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: cache lookup failed for attribute 1 of relation XXXXXX |
Date: | 2018-07-19 16:07:16 |
Message-ID: | CAM9F+O3f6WGCfv7CJcee=+G=uSU5oEbvo5GkxwdA+S4giTzC5w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks much, I'll keep my eyes open today night hoping it will not happen
again.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> [ 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 | Adrian Klaver | 2018-07-19 16:35:54 | Re: functions with side effect |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-07-19 15:39:45 | Re: cache lookup failed for attribute 1 of relation XXXXXX |