Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
Дата
Msg-id 4044.946483296@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption  (Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption  (wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Список pgsql-hackers
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 withselect 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.

7.0 should fix this problem, but it's a real hazard in 6.5.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [SQL] Index scan on CIDR field ?
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: subquery performance and EXISTS