Re:Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bug: ERROR: invalid cache ID: 42 CONTEXT:parallel worker - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From jimmy
Subject Re:Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bug: ERROR: invalid cache ID: 42 CONTEXT:parallel worker
Date
Msg-id 197d639a.477b.1659d691377.Coremail.mpokky@126.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bug: ERROR: invalid cache ID: 42 CONTEXT:parallel worker  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-bugs

hi,I  exported the data into the normal postgresql table from foreign table by oracle_fdw.
Now I use four normal tables to query data, not use foreign table .
but it still throws the error like below:
So I think maybe that is not much related with oracle_fdw, because I use the normal tables of Postgresql to query data.
--------------------------------------
ERROR: invalid cache ID: 42 CONTEXT: parallel worker 
SQL 状态:XX000
-------------------------------------- 
I test the same sql in postgres-bigsql-10.5 for windows version, that still throws the error like above.
and the quantity of these tables' field are very large , every tables has more than 800 fields.
Would it make these errors .
Or maybe would the sql I execute has some mistakes.
I am confused.What is wrong.
The sql has been provided before.
I use some unique table indexs like this:
create unique index tableB_id1 on tableB(x);




At 2018-08-27 20:54:27, "Thomas Munro" <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:19 PM Thomas Munro ><thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> Just want to double check something: are you sure you're using >> oracle_fdw 2.0.0? It seems that the earlier versions suffered from a >> problem with exactly the symptom you describe (except the error said >> 41 instead of 42, but that's expected because the enumerator values >> moved): >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/11960.1511116873%40sss.pgh.pa.us >> >> But that was fixed here: >> >> https://github.com/laurenz/oracle_fdw/commit/4accfebb33c316d71da73d341dac796df813638c > >Ah, I missed the fact that the 2.0.0 release didn't have that fix, and >there hasn't been a new release since. So this is an issue to take up >on the oracle_fdw issue tracker. > >-- >Thomas Munro >http://www.enterprisedb.com


 

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Two constraints with the same name not always allowed
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #15324: Non-deterministic behaviour from parallelised sub-query