Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC8AB5DC1A for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:51:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98330-04 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:51:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from polaris.pinpointresearch.com (cerberus.pinpointresearch.com [66.7.238.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DDE4B5DC19 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:51:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from betelgeuse.pinpointresearch.com (betelgeuse.pinpointresearch.com [192.168.1.179]) by polaris.pinpointresearch.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DB8E00EC84; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E1E2F80.30709@pinpointresearch.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:51:28 -0700 From: Steve Crawford User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: "pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Admin" Subject: Re: could not open relation with OID References: <4E1E1CFE.2030500@pinpointresearch.com> <12791.1310599941@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <12791.1310599941@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 201107/97 X-Sequence-Number: 37876 On 07/13/2011 04:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Steve Crawford writes: >> I've seen the "could not open relation with OID" error a couple times >> recently ... > Not worry.... > You might be able to dodge the problem by excluding temp relations from > the reporting query, though whether the sum of only non-temp rel sizes > is of value to you is hard to guess from here. Data safety was my concern. The error is so rare that I can ignore it. (The two I saw are the first in the 2+ years this server has been active and were probably the result of running the report manually when the database was active rather than the usual nighttime cron-run). Cheers, Steve