Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > That will also be fixed. > > > > Do you mean to say the offending index will be auto-corrected on the fly? That > > would be almost as good as preventing the root cause in the first place... > > No, it just reports the index name. In 7.1, I think this problem will > go away, if not in 7.0. Is the problem well-understood? Is there a place where I can read up on it? This kind of instability is painful enough to get me thinking about trying to hack my distribution... Cheers, Ed Loehr ************
- [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLE... Ed Loehr
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF IND... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF... Ed Loehr
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBE... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: N... Ed Loehr
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_ind... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc... Ed Loehr
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_pr... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_pr... Ed Loehr
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_pr... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_pr... Ed Loehr
- Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: N... Mike Mascari