Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-22 Thread Tom Lane
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Nov 21, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm, do the drop/add constraint functions get executed even when >> clone_table decides not to make a new table? If so, that would >> probably explain the pattern I'm seeing in the dump of many updates of t

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Nov 21, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I don't touch pg_class at all... this is what I'm doing (over and over again). -- clone_table is almost always a no-op, but once a day it creates a new table SELECT clone_table('ping', 'pi

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't touch pg_class at all... this is what I'm doing (over and > over again). > -- clone_table is almost always a no-op, but once a day it creates a > new table > SELECT clone_table('ping', 'ping_%s', '') > SELECT drop_ping_

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Nov 21, 2005, at 4:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Nov 21, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Well, I count at least a couple hundred deleted versions of that table row :-(. What the heck were you doing with it? The ETL process

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Nov 21, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Well, I count at least a couple hundred deleted versions of that table > >> row :-(. What the heck were you doing with it? > > > The ETL process keeps trying until it succeeds or someo

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Nov 21, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, I count at least a couple hundred deleted versions of that table >> row :-(. What the heck were you doing with it? > The ETL process keeps trying until it succeeds or someone stops it, > so I guess

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Nov 21, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sure, here it is: http://undefined.org/mochi.pg_class-1.filedump.gz Well, I count at least a couple hundred deleted versions of that table row :-(. What the heck were you doing with it? As far as I can th

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sure, here it is: > http://undefined.org/mochi.pg_class-1.filedump.gz Well, I count at least a couple hundred deleted versions of that table row :-(. What the heck were you doing with it? As far as I can think offhand, only a schema modification would c

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Nov 21, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ok, here's the pg_filedump for the pg_class table in the mochi database that is having the issue: Thanks. I don't see any live tuples that look like they could have been the one we want, but there's a w

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok, here's the pg_filedump for the pg_class table in the mochi > database that is having the issue: Thanks. I don't see any live tuples that look like they could have been the one we want, but there's a whole lot of deleted rows, which pg_filedump won'

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Nov 21, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ok, so how do I figure out which file(s) are associated with pg_class so I can feed this thing? See contrib/oid2name and/or read http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/storage.html Ok, here's the pg_fi

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok, so how do I figure out which file(s) are associated with pg_class > so I can feed this thing? See contrib/oid2name and/or read http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/storage.html regards, tom lane ---

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Nov 21, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The attributes look like the names of all the columns in the table, and reindexing didn't help. So at this point it seems that the pg_class row disappeared, but there probably wasn't any actual DROP operati

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The attributes look like the names of all the columns in the table, > and reindexing didn't help. So at this point it seems that the pg_class row disappeared, but there probably wasn't any actual DROP operation --- you'd think at least some of those oth

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Nov 21, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I don't know how to get the oid of a type.. but there are certainly entries in pg_depend with the other criteria: Hmph, looks like you still have a pretty full set of dependencies for the table. What about

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't know how to get the oid of a type.. but there are certainly > entries in pg_depend with the other criteria: Hmph, looks like you still have a pretty full set of dependencies for the table. What about attributes --- try select attname fr

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Nov 21, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Nov 21, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Try dropping the type. I did try that, I guess it didn't make it to the list yet: mochi=# drop type ping_1132387200; ERROR: cache lookup failed for relati

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Nov 21, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Try dropping the type. > I did try that, I guess it didn't make it to the list yet: > mochi=# drop type ping_1132387200; > ERROR: cache lookup failed for relation 211174567 Hmm, apparently there are stil

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > mochi=# drop table ping_1132387200; > ERROR: table "ping_1132387200" does not exist > mochi=# create table ping_1132387200(); > ERROR: type "ping_1132387200" already exists > I'm not sure what to do about this.. Try dropping the type. We've seen at le

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Nov 21, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote: I've been running 8.1.0 on a test box since the FreeBSD port has been available, and it appears that the catalog has become corrupted. There's plenty of free space on all volumes, so it hasn't run out of space or anything. $ uname -a Fre

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bob Ippolito wrote: > I've been running 8.1.0 on a test box since the FreeBSD port has been > available, and it appears that the catalog has become corrupted. > There's plenty of free space on all volumes, so it hasn't run out of > space or anything. > > $ uname -a > FreeBSD shi.mochibot.co

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 catalog corruption

2005-11-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Nov 21, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: mochi=# drop table ping_1132387200; ERROR: table "ping_1132387200" does not exist mochi=# create table ping_1132387200(); ERROR: type "ping_1132387200" already exists I'm not sure what to do about this.