Обсуждение: BUG #12812: invalid attribute number for

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

BUG #12812: invalid attribute number for

От
ipnb87@gmail.com
Дата:
The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:      12812
Logged by:          Iyappan Balachandran
Email address:      ipnb87@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.3.5
Operating system:   Windows Server 2008 r2
Description:

When selecting particular table or schema , views having that table shows
this error.
I also can't take backup this database or schema.

Kindly Help on this.

Re: BUG #12812: invalid attribute number for

От
Michael Paquier
Дата:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 3:29 PM,  <ipnb87@gmail.com> wrote:
> When selecting particular table or schema , views having that table shows
> this error.
> I also can't take backup this database or schema.

Could you send a test case that helps to reproduce the problem you are
seeing and the error message you are seeing? I am afraid that with so
little information there is not much we can do..
--
Michael

Re: BUG #12812: invalid attribute number for

От
IPN Bala GSS TVL
Дата:

			
		

Re: BUG #12812: invalid attribute number for

От
John R Pierce
Дата:
On 2/28/2015 1:50 AM, IPN Bala GSS TVL wrote:
>
> ERROR:  invalid attribute number 24932 for transaction_set
> LINE 1: SELECT * FROM AD_GSS_DMS_P.TRANSACTION_SET

that looks like data corruption may have occurred.


--
john r pierce                                      37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

Re: BUG #12812: invalid attribute number for

От
Tom Lane
Дата:
John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
> On 2/28/2015 1:50 AM, IPN Bala GSS TVL wrote:
>> ERROR:  invalid attribute number 24932 for transaction_set
>> LINE 1: SELECT * FROM AD_GSS_DMS_P.TRANSACTION_SET

> that looks like data corruption may have occurred.

Yeah :-(.  The only occurrence of that message text in 9.3 is in
RelationBuildTupleDesc, and it's saying it found a row in pg_attribute
with that attnum and the mentioned table's attrelid.  The attnum is
obviously bogus for any row in pg_attribute, ergo something has corrupted
data in pg_attribute.  It's unlikely that only one row has been corrupted,
too :-(

Depending on how valuable that database is, you might want to go back
to your last backups, or you might want to seek professional help
--- there are assorted consulting companies that specialize in dealing
with data-corruption situations.

In any case you should try to identify the cause of the problem.
It's more than likely a hardware or OS problem --- there are few
known reasons for Postgres itself to cause this sort of failure.

            regards, tom lane

Re: BUG #12812: invalid attribute number for

От
IPN Bala GSS TVL
Дата:
Thanks John,
I also try to re index for pg_attribute and that particular table, but that
is also failed. We will check the reason for Postgres itself crash. I hope
upcoming version may address this problem.
 On 28-Feb-2015 9:28 pm, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
> > On 2/28/2015 1:50 AM, IPN Bala GSS TVL wrote:
> >> ERROR:  invalid attribute number 24932 for transaction_set
> >> LINE 1: SELECT * FROM AD_GSS_DMS_P.TRANSACTION_SET
>
> > that looks like data corruption may have occurred.
>
> Yeah :-(.  The only occurrence of that message text in 9.3 is in
> RelationBuildTupleDesc, and it's saying it found a row in pg_attribute
> with that attnum and the mentioned table's attrelid.  The attnum is
> obviously bogus for any row in pg_attribute, ergo something has corrupted
> data in pg_attribute.  It's unlikely that only one row has been corrupted,
> too :-(
>
> Depending on how valuable that database is, you might want to go back
> to your last backups, or you might want to seek professional help
> --- there are assorted consulting companies that specialize in dealing
> with data-corruption situations.
>
> In any case you should try to identify the cause of the problem.
> It's more than likely a hardware or OS problem --- there are few
> known reasons for Postgres itself to cause this sort of failure.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>