Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A512E009B for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:28:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91238-03 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:28:11 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from mailsrv1.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.162.198]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDD32E002D for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:28:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mailsrv.i.zmi.at (h081217054243.dyn.cm.kabsi.at [81.217.54.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mailsrv.i.zmi.at", Issuer "mailsrv.i.zmi.at" (not verified)) by mailsrv1.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEB4A83 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:28:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from saturn.i.zmi.at (saturn.i.zmi.at [10.0.0.2]) by mailsrv.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1686EBFCE for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:28:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Organization: it-management http://it-management.at To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: duplicate primary index in bayes db from SpamAssassin Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:28:14 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) References: <200804141757.21574@zmi.at> <200804170945.51400@zmi.at> <20473.1208446891@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <20473.1208446891@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart5306723.3tkRYoAtYb"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200804180128.15120@zmi.at> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.015 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.015 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200804/184 X-Sequence-Number: 28948 --nextPart5306723.3tkRYoAtYb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008 Tom Lane wrote: > This latest bit with many fewer index entries than table entries is > just weird, though. =A0The 8.1.10 VACUUM bug could have led to having > *more* index entries than table entries, but not the other way > around. Somehow I can think of it like that: SA didn't find user "vscan"=20 anymore, so created a new entry for it. And then it created all the new=20 learned ham/spam tokens again despite they were there already. Must=20 have to do with not finding it from the index or so. It would be nice if pg_dump would FAIL on such a broken database. Like=20 this, I would have become informed about the problem. The bayes db=20 isn't quite interactive, and SA seems to ignore errors. The reason I=20 found it was that our SPAM filter started to let spam through which did=20 not happen for years (yes, we have *very hard* anti spam settings, our=20 customers love it that way - no spam). So I got aware that bayes got=20 stupid and then I found the mess... mfg zmi =2D-=20 // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at // Tel: 0676/846 914 666 .network.your.ideas. // PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import" // Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38 500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4 // Keyserver: www.keyserver.net Key-ID: 1C1209B4 --nextPart5306723.3tkRYoAtYb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBIB90PzhSR9xwSCbQRAneZAKCXNJaRenyMpYMt8Td58nXc5D3LCQCgzOvR cLImAPrd9T1lcPadIZ8BYJY= =hFBM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart5306723.3tkRYoAtYb--