Re: [HACKERS] major flaw in 6.5beta1??? (UPDATE/INSERT waiting) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael.Davis@tvguide.com (Michael Davis)
Subject Re: [HACKERS] major flaw in 6.5beta1??? (UPDATE/INSERT waiting)
Date
Msg-id 199905051427.KAA76248@hub.org
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers
Your e-mail did not arrive at its intended destination. You need to
send it to Michael J. Davis, not Michael Davis

From:    Dirk Lutzebaeck <lutzeb @ aeccom.com> on 05/05/99 03:30 AMTo:    Tom Lane <tgl @
sss.pgh.pa.us>@SMTP@EXCHANGEcc:   hackers @ postgreSQL.org@SMTP@EXCHANGE Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] major flaw in
6.5beta1???
(UPDATE/INSERT waiting) 
Tom Lane writes: > Dirk Lutzebaeck <lutzeb@aeccom.com> writes: > > cs=> select envelope from recipient where
envelope=510349;> > [ returns a tuple that obviously fails the WHERE condition ] >  > Yipes.  Do you have an index on
theenvelope field, and if so is > it being used for this query?  (Use EXPLAIN to check.)  My guess > is that the index
iscorrupted.  Dropping and recreating the
 
index > would probably set things right.
Yes, thanks, recreating the index cures the problem.
 > Of course the real issue is how it got corrupted.  Hiroshi found > an important bug in btree a few days ago, and
thereis a
 
discussion > going on right now about lock-manager bugs that might possibly
allow > multiple backends to corrupt data that they're concurrently
updating. > But I have no idea if either of those explains your problem.
Does this mean they can deadlock themselves?  Is this also true for6.4.2? I probably switch back then.
Thanks, Dirk





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael.Davis@tvguide.com (Michael Davis)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement
Next
From: Michael.Davis@tvguide.com (Michael Davis)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Advice wanted on backend memory management