Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F531337B98;
	Wed,  6 Oct 2010 10:41:25 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 75086-01; Wed,  6 Oct 2010 13:41:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB16133616B;
	Wed,  6 Oct 2010 10:41:17 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o96DfHw5015456;
	Wed, 6 Oct 2010 09:41:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: Lukasz Brodziak <lukasz.brodziak@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, pgadmin-support@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Can't access tables. 
In-reply-to: <AANLkTinWHJn+9BxR1XOcqw8LLxru6MyXEUEV0kiVkTkx@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <AANLkTinWHJn+9BxR1XOcqw8LLxru6MyXEUEV0kiVkTkx@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Lukasz Brodziak <lukasz.brodziak@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 06 Oct 2010 08:45:25 +0200"
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:41:16 -0400
Message-ID: <15455.1286372476@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201010/70
X-Sequence-Number: 10662

Lukasz Brodziak <lukasz.brodziak@gmail.com> writes:
> I have a problem with viewing tables from my DB. The interesting thing
> is that the physical files exist in the data folder but only some of
> them are visible both in pgAdmin and the application that uses the DB.
> What's more there's no trace of those tables in pg_class whatsoever. I
> can view ca. half of the tables (120 out of almost 250). Have anyone
> come accross such behaviour? The files appear to be fine compared to
> another DB containing same tables and same data.

We used to get reports of that sort of thing from people who hadn't
vacuumed pg_class in a very long time (>2 billion transactions).
The pg_class rows *were* there, but invisible to ordinary queries
because of wraparound.  That should be impossible in any modern
PG release branch, but since you didn't say what you're running,
maybe vacuuming the system catalogs would help.

			regards, tom lane