Re: [GENERAL] does this look more like a possible bug or more like a possible hardware problem...? (long)
Some additional info:
# select * from pg_class where relname = 'article_property_tree';
-[ RECORD 1 ]--
+---
relname| article_property_tree
relnamespace | 2200
reltype| 8349772
relowner | 1000
relam | 0
relfilenode| 8349771
relpages | 4
reltuples | 299
reltoastrelid | 8349775
reltoastidxid | 0
relhasindex| t
relisshared| f
relkind| r
relnatts | 6
relchecks | 1
reltriggers| 3
relukeys | 0
relfkeys | 0
relrefs| 0
relhasoids | t
relhaspkey | t
relhasrules| f
relhassubclass | f
relacl | {vugtf=a*r*w*d*R*x*t*/vugtf,=arwdRxt/vugtf,postgres=arwdRxt/
vugtf}
-[ RECORD 2 ]--
+---
relname| article_property_tree
relnamespace | 2200
reltype| 8354495
relowner | 1000
relam | 0
relfilenode| 8354494
relpages | 4
reltuples | 299
reltoastrelid | 8354498
reltoastidxid | 0
relhasindex| t
relisshared| f
relkind| r
relnatts | 6
relchecks | 1
reltriggers| 5
relukeys | 0
relfkeys | 0
relrefs| 0
relhasoids | t
relhaspkey | t
relhasrules| f
relhassubclass | f
relacl | {vugtf=a*r*w*d*R*x*t*/vugtf,=arwdRxt/vugtf,postgres=arwdRxt/
vugtf}
--
Best,
Frank.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] does this look more like a possible bug or more like a possible hardware problem...? (long)
Frank van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> This is consistent with the idea that pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index is >> corrupted. I would suggest saving a copy of that file for postmortem >> analysis and then trying to REINDEX pg_attribute. > Uhm.. looking for a file named 8349771 located in the directory base/ > where nr corresponds to the proper db, using oid2name. > We seem to have a small problem : there is no such file. I'm sorry, I meant to say save a copy of pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index. The correct filename for it can be found via select relfilenode from pg_class where relname = 'pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index'; > Oid of table article_property_tree from database "megafox_trial": > - > VERY scary: more than one table with that name found!! Do you have more than one such table (presumably in different schemas)? If so this isn't scary at all. I don't believe oid2name has been fixed to be schema-aware :-( regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] does this look more like a possible bug or more like a possible hardware problem...? (long)
Frank van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At one point, I arrived at the following situation: > psql:/home/data/megadump.sql:5169: WARNING: specified item offset is too > large > psql:/home/data/megadump.sql:5169: PANIC: failed to add item to the page > for "pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index" > Trying the same script on a newly created database doesn't show the problem. > However, I do still have the database that came up with this message, which > is now failing a vacuum full verbose analyse with: > ERROR: catalog is missing 6 attribute(s) for relid 8349771 This is consistent with the idea that pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index is corrupted. I would suggest saving a copy of that file for postmortem analysis and then trying to REINDEX pg_attribute. (Depending on which PG version you are running, that may require running a standalone backend. See the REINDEX man page.) If REINDEX makes the problem go away, would you send me the corrupted index file off-list? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] does this look more like a possible bug or more like a possible hardware problem...? (long)
> I'm sorry, I meant to say save a copy of > pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index. The correct filename for it can be > found via > select relfilenode from pg_class where relname = > 'pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index'; Got it, made a backup of the entire database as well. Since the db wasn't filled yet, both files are fairly small when bzipped (<0.5MB and < 5MB) and both can be made available if you want. Issuing 'reindex table pg_attribute' did not solve the problem, though > > Oid of table article_property_tree from database "megafox_trial": > > - > > VERY scary: more than one table with that name found!! > > Do you have more than one such table (presumably in different schemas)? > If so this isn't scary at all. I don't believe oid2name has been fixed > to be schema-aware :-( Nope, all user-tables are in public at the moment. Also: megafox_trial=# select * from article_property_tree; ERROR: catalog is missing 6 attribute(s) for relid 8349771 -- Best, Frank. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
[GENERAL] does this look more like a possible bug or more like a possible hardware problem...? (long)
Hi,
I'm using a 9500 line script to create an initial database. After applying a
number of changes, I was repeatedly executing this script while hunting for
typos. The script itself takes care of dropping the various objects and every
now and then (when delta t << autovacuum t) a manual vacuum full was
performed to clean the system tables.
At one point, I arrived at the following situation:
db=# select version();
version
PostgreSQL 7.4.1 on i586-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2.3
Message in psql terminal:
psql:/home/data/megadump.sql:5169: NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will
create implicit index "remainder_type_pkey" for table "remainder_type"
psql:/home/data/megadump.sql:5169: NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / UNIQUE will create
implicit index "remainder_type_abbreviation_key" for table "remainder_type"
psql:/home/data/megadump.sql:5169: WARNING: specified item offset is too
large
psql:/home/data/megadump.sql:5169: PANIC: failed to add item to the page for
"pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index"
server closed the connection unexpectedly
This probably means the server terminated abnormally
before or while processing the request.
psql:/home/data/megadump.sql:5169: connection to server was lost
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>
(so psql did indeed quit)
The specific part in the script contains nothing strange:
CREATE TABLE "remainder_type" (
"id" integer primary key check ("id" > 0),
"abbreviation" varchar(20) not null unique,
"descr" varchar(30) not null
);
GRANT SELECT on remainder_type to PUBLIC;
GRANT ALL on remainder_type to "postgres";
The server logs are mentioning this:
2004-03-09 23:11:34 [6516] LOG: statement: CREATE TABLE "remainder_type" (
"id" integer primary key check ("id" > 0),
"abbreviation" varchar(20) not null unique,
"descr" varchar(30) not null
);
2004-03-09 23:11:34 [6516] NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create
implicit index "remainder_type_pkey" for table "remainder_type"
2004-03-09 23:11:34 [6516] NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / UNIQUE will create implicit
index "remainder_type_abbreviation_key" for table "remainder_type"
2004-03-09 23:11:34 [6516] WARNING: specified item offset is too large
2004-03-09 23:11:34 [6516] PANIC: failed to add item to the page for
"pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index"
STATEMENT: CREATE TABLE "remainder_type" (
"id" integer primary key check ("id" > 0),
"abbreviation" varchar(20) not null unique,
"descr" varchar(30) not null
);
2004-03-09 23:11:34 [833] LOG: server process (PID 6516) was terminated by
signal 6
2004-03-09 23:11:34 [833] LOG: terminating any other active server processes
2004-03-09 23:11:34 [8074] WARNING: terminating connection because of crash
of another server process
DETAIL: The postmaster has commanded this server process to roll back the
current transaction and exit, because another server process exited
abnormally and possibly corrupted shared memory.
HINT: In a moment you should be able to reconnect to the database and repeat
your command.
2004-03-09 23:11:34 [833] LOG: all server processes terminated;
reinitializing
2004-03-09 23:11:34 [8075] LOG: database system was interrupted at 2004-03-09
23:11:31 CET
2004-03-09 23:11:35 [8075] LOG: checkpoint record is at 1/9FAAB5C
2004-03-09 23:11:35 [8075] LOG: redo record is at 1/9E803DC; undo record is
at 0/0; shutdown FALSE
2004-03-09 23:11:35 [8075] LOG: next transaction ID: 354187; next OID:
8355508
2004-03-09 23:11:35 [8075] LOG: database system was not properly shut down;
automatic recovery in progress
2004-03-09 23:11:35 [8075] LOG: redo starts at 1/9E803DC
2004-03-09 23:11:46 [8075] LOG: record with zero length at 1/B27335C
2004-03-09 23:11:46 [8075] LOG: redo done at 1/B273338
2004-03-09 23:11:55 [8075] LOG: database system is ready
After this, a vacuum full verbose analyse seems to end prematurely with:
INFO: vacuuming "public.stock_delivery"
INFO: "stock_delivery": found 0 removable, 0 nonremovable row versions in 0
pages
DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
Nonremovable row versions range from 0 to 0 bytes long.
There were 0 unused item pointers.
Total free space (including removable row versions) is 0 bytes.
0 pages are or will become empty, including 0 at the end of the table.
0 pages containing 0 free bytes are potential move destinations.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO: index "stock_delivery_pkey" now contains 0 row versions in 1 pages
DETAIL: 0 index pages have been deleted, 0 are currently reusable.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.02 sec.
INFO: index "stock_delivery_delivery_id_key" now contains 0 row versions in 1
pages
DETAIL: 0 index pages have been deleted, 0 are currently reusable.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO: index "stock_
