X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3D78BA2CC for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:01:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07152-10 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:01:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2018B9F48 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:01:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1HJ1eiQ009786; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:01:40 -0500 (EST) To: pginfo Cc: Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com, Michael Glaesemann , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg primary key bug? In-reply-to: <4214D5C3.4070107@t1.unisoftbg.com> References: <4214B466.20908@t1.unisoftbg.com> <8125.1108661189@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4214C94F.2050806@t1.unisoftbg.com> <9340.1108664352@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4214D5C3.4070107@t1.unisoftbg.com> Comments: In-reply-to pginfo message dated "Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:34:59 +0100" Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:01:40 -0500 Message-ID: <9785.1108666900@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.007 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200502/201 X-Sequence-Number: 20312 pginfo writes: > Will upgrade to 8.0 solve this type of problems ? The problem is probably not Postgres' fault at all. I'm wondering about disks with write cacheing enabled. And you didn't turn off fsync, I trust? regards, tom lane