Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Adriaan Joubert
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
Дата
Msg-id 386A7658.13933C0A@albourne.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Index corruption  (Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

> pg_proc_prosrc_index is the problem, eh?  I'll bet a nickel that you're
> seeing still another manifestation of btree's problems with oversized
> index entries.  (See recent thread 'Error "vacuum pg_proc"'.)
>
> Check to see if you have any functions whose definitions exceed 2700
> bytes, eg with
>         select proname from pg_proc where length(prosrc) > 2700;
> If so, you need to rewrite them to be smaller, perhaps by breaking
> them into multiple functions.

Yep, I've got two of those. I saw the message about  lengths in indexes,
but howcome this is relevant for procedures? I thought it would only be an
index on name and a pointer into pg_proc? Just asking because I want to
understand how this works.

I'll rewrite them and see whether that fixes it. Thanks a lot for the
help!

Adriaan



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Using aggregate in HAVING
Следующее
От: Mike Mascari
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Using aggregate in HAVING