Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA9D2E0366 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:57:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66134-03-2 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:57:33 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from gv-out-0910.google.com (gv-out-0910.google.com [216.239.58.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4922A2E0AF4 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:57:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: by gv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id y18so851861gvf.7 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.100.21 with SMTP id c21mr4651018ybm.164.1205341018822; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.96.5 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <937d27e10803120956hbbd915enac074784f0b2ea3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:58 +0000 From: "Dave Page" To: "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" Subject: Re: Email not searchable in our archives Cc: "Tom Lane" , "Alvaro Herrera" , "Bruce Momjian" , "PostgreSQL www" In-Reply-To: <47D80B19.7000906@kaltenbrunner.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200803112135.m2BLZ6625071@momjian.us> <20080312130902.GC4926@alvh.no-ip.org> <937d27e10803120714h21f1f661s657fad641f35c3d5@mail.gmail.com> <937d27e10803120825k67fc19c1h27f977a8038dfdd7@mail.gmail.com> <19584.1205336481@sss.pgh.pa.us> <937d27e10803120904g3198fd51vd4a51a36e556eca7@mail.gmail.com> <20051.1205338017@sss.pgh.pa.us> <47D80B19.7000906@kaltenbrunner.cc> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/264 X-Sequence-Number: 14383 On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > "Dave Page" writes: > >> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> That would explain a contiguous range of messages that were not indexed, > >>> but is that what we have? > > > >> Looking at the debug output, the messages that were missed were all contiguous: > > > > OK, that seems to support your theory. Might as well go ahead and > > reindex. +1 for getting some monitoring in there somewhere. > > yeah we will work on that and add some new ones to our current list of > 354 active checks ;-) One thing that crosses my mind - perhaps we should run a full index once per week to try to catch this sort of thing in the future? BTW, up to 13500 messages now... -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK Ltd: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk