Andrew Hammond <andrew.george.hamm...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hmm, that's pretty interesting ... are there any nearby autovacuums of
>> pg_toast_2619?
> Several, both before and after the error message:
Well, it seems clear that somehow the vacuum deleted a toast tuple that
the other statement was about to fetch, but it's not clear how this
could be. The pg_statistic fetch must have come from the planner, which
should always be called with a transaction snapshot established, and
that ought to protect it against vacuum deleting anything that could be
visible to SnapshotNow. Weird.
[ pokes around for a bit ... ] Hmm, can you say how the failing query
was submitted, exactly? I'm wondering if it came in via simple Query
(PQexec) or extended-query protocol (anything with parameters).
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
