From: pginfo <pginfo@t1.unisoftbg.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com, Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg primary key bug?
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:34:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4214D5C3.4070107@t1.unisoftbg.com> (raw)
References: <OFEF67063C.F61988F3-ON05256F9D.005A91D6@ftw.us.ray.com>
<4214B466.20908@t1.unisoftbg.com>
<8125.1108661189@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4214C94F.2050806@t1.unisoftbg.com>
<9340.1108664352@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
>pginfo <pginfo@t1.unisoftbg.com> writes:
>
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Could we see the system columns on these rows?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>01=# select oid,xmin,cmin,xmax,cmax,ctid,* from a_constants_str where
>>constname='DOCPLAID';
>> oid | xmin | cmin | xmax | cmax | ctid | constname | fid |
>>constvalue
>>-------+---------+---------+---------+------+--------+-----------+-----+------------
>> 17916 | 2232893 | 2235861 | 2235861 | 42 | (4,71) | DOCPLAID | 0 |
>>SOF_19738
>> 17916 | 2232893 | 2235861 | 2235861 | 41 | (7,62) | DOCPLAID | 0 |
>>SOF_19738
>>(2 rows)
>>
>>
>
>Given the identical OID and xmin values, it seems certain that these are
>the "same" row, ie there was only one insertion event. My bet is that
>the one at (7,62) is the original, and that the one at (4,71) is a copy
>that was made by VACUUM FULL trying to move the row to compact the
>table. So the question is how did both copies get to be marked
>simultaneously valid? That should be impossible, unless a disk write
>got dropped. Have you had any system crashes during VACUUM FULL
>operations recently?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
>
I do not know exact, but it is possible.
This is customer server and I do not have any info about server/os
crash, but I am 100% sure.
I will ask as soon as possible and replay.
Also I will check the logs.
We start pg witl pg_ctl ...-D... -l /logfile and if we can found the
needet info in pg log file I can check it ( I do not nkow what to search
in this file).
We are running vacuum once per 24 h.
The OS is RedHat AS 3.
PostgreSQL is 7.4.1 (but we have the same problem on 7.4.5).
Will upgrade to 8.0 solve this type of problems ?
regards,
ivan.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: pginfo@t1.unisoftbg.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, grzm@myrealbox.com, pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg primary key bug?
In-Reply-To: <4214D5C3.4070107@t1.unisoftbg.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox