On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:23:01AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Thursday, November 03, 2011 8:05:38 am hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:04:19AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > > So just to be clear there is and never has been a -1 value for xobject_id
> > > in the source table?
> >
> > yes. min value of xobject_id is 1000, and we had trigger in place on the
> > table which logged all inserts/updates/deletes and the value -1 never
> > showed up (At least in the last couple of days, during which i was
> > making the copies).
> >
> > > So a select count(*) from sssssss.xobjects where xobject_id = -1 on the
> > > source table yields 0?
> >
> > yes, that's correct. both using index, and usingf seq scan.
>
> Hmmm. Now we await the results of the tests Tom suggested. Just a thought,
> any
> other strange behavior, hiccups in the database over the past couple of days?
no. it's doing it's job without problems.
other tests are running, but simple question - how to get number of rows
affected from psql?
create table xxx as select * from xobjects;
returns just:
SELECT
Best regards,
depesz
--
The best thing about modern society is how easy it is to avoid contact with it.
http://depesz.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
