On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> >> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> That would explain a contiguous range of messages that were not indexed,
> >>> but is that what we have?
> >
> >> Looking at the debug output, the messages that were missed were all contiguous:
> >
> > OK, that seems to support your theory. Might as well go ahead and
> > reindex. +1 for getting some monitoring in there somewhere.
>
> yeah we will work on that and add some new ones to our current list of
> 354 active checks ;-)
One thing that crosses my mind - perhaps we should run a full index
once per week to try to catch this sort of thing in the future?
BTW, up to 13500 messages now...
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK Ltd: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk