Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
Дата
Msg-id 4945.946504744@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption  (Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption  (wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Список pgsql-hackers
Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com> writes:
>> 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.

Bingo ...

> I saw the message about  lengths in indexes,
> but howcome this is relevant for procedures?

In 6.5 (and before), there's an index on the prosrc field of pg_proc,
ie, the definition of the procedure.  There's not any real good reason
to have such an index, so we've removed it for 7.0 ... but in 6.5 it's
there and it creates problems if you have long procedure definitions :-(
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: subquery performance and EXISTS
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: subquery performance and EXISTS