Re: cache lookup failed for attribute 1 of relation XXXXXX

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
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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