On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Jeff Frost wrote:
Well, it's been working wonderfully since the REINDEX, so I don't know what
to say. Any idea if having a too small max_fsm_pages could hose an index,
because I know that happened not too long before we started seeing this
problem. The fsm settings were i
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, I can't find anything wrong :-(. There are some differences in
the list of contained keys, but they're all up near the end of the
range, which is consistent with the assumption that the table is live
and had some changes between your two dumps of the in
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, I spoke to soon on the it all works front. So, it's been
reindexed and appears to be working properly now. I guess I'll keep
an eye on it for a while. I didn't get your query suggestion in time,
so hopefully I g
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I spoke to soon on the it all works front. So, it's been
> reindexed and appears to be working properly now. I guess I'll keep
> an eye on it for a while. I didn't get your query suggestion in time,
> so hopefully I grabbed the right binary file..th
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BTW, just to make sure I get the right file to ship over if we have this
again, it would be: /var/lib/pgsql/data/base/9366228/16204210 yes?
Not necessarily --- the filename is initially the same as the index OID,
but i
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, just to make sure I get the right file to ship over if we have this
> again, it would be: /var/lib/pgsql/data/base/9366228/16204210 yes?
Not necessarily --- the filename is initially the same as the index OID,
but it wouldn't be anymore after a REINDE
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
This seems pretty darn weird. I am wondering about corrupt indexes ---
can you find the indicated key in either table if you set
enable_indexscan and enable_bitmapscan to 0?
That's
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems pretty darn weird. I am wondering about corrupt indexes ---
>> can you find the indicated key in either table if you set
>> enable_indexscan and enable_bitmapscan to 0?
> test_tracking=# begin;
> BEGIN
> te
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
delete from visit where id not in (select distinct visit_id from page_view);
This yields the following error:
ERROR: update or delete on "visit" violates foreign key constraint
"fk34afd255fbacabec" on "page_view"
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> delete from visit where id not in (select distinct visit_id from page_view);
> This yields the following error:
> ERROR: update or delete on "visit" violates foreign key constraint
> "fk34afd255fbacabec" on "page_view"
> DETAIL: Key (id)=(38635629) is s
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Jeff Frost wrote:
I'm having problem with a cleanup script that runs nightly. The script calls
the following query:
delete from visit where id not in (select distinct visit_id from page_view);
This yields the following error:
ERROR: update or delete on "visit" violates
I'm having problem with a cleanup script that runs nightly. The script calls
the following query:
delete from visit where id not in (select distinct visit_id from page_view);
This yields the following error:
ERROR: update or delete on "visit" violates foreign key constraint
"fk34afd255fbaca
12 matches
Mail list logo
