On 27.07.2011 17:43, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> 1(l:1) blk: 324 numTuple: 129 free: 2472b(69.71%) rightlink:4294967295
> (InvalidBlockNumber)
>> 1(l:2) blk: 242 numTuple: 164 free: 932b(88.58%)
> rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
>> 2(l:2) blk: 525 numTuple: 121 free: 2824b(65.39%)
> rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
>> 3(l:2) blk: 70 numTuple: 104 free: 3572b(56.23%)
> rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
>> 4(l:2) blk: 384 numTuple: 106 free: 3484b(57.30%)
> rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
>> 5(l:2) blk: 555 numTuple: 121 free: 2824b(65.39%)
> rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
>> 6(l:2) blk: 564 numTuple: 109 free: 3352b(58.92%)
> rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
>> 7(l:2) blk: 165 numTuple: 108 free: 3396b(58.38%)
> rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
> .....
>
> Isn't it a bug?
Yeah, looks like a bug. I must've messed up the WAL logging in my recent
changes to this. I'll look into that.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com