On 12 May 2010, at 12:01, Glyn Astill wrote: > Did you not mention that this server was a slony slave at some point though? > > Just because you have removed slony, and the error comes from postgresql > itself does not mean the corruption was not caused by misuse of slony.
Indeed. I wonder if "when we ere adding/removing slony to the system for Nth time (due to it sometimes going out of sync)" may be caused by that as well. > --- On Wed, 12/5/10, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryz...@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 8.3.7, 'cache lookup failed' for a table >> To: "Alban Hertroys" <dal...@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> >> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org >> Date: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010, 10:57 >> no it is not slony related. >> It is a postgresql problem. >> >> my original post: >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-05/msg00402.php >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >> > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > > > > Alban Hertroys -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest. !DSPAM:737,4bea7e6d10417427874228! -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
