On Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:15:22 am hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 07:00:30AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > > I also verified that there are no concurrent updates that would set
> > > xobject_id to -1, so it's not a problem of isolation.
> > >
> > > During the night I repeated the procedure and the rows that got
> > > duplicated seem to be the same - at the very least - the same
> > > magic_id.
> > >
> > > Does above seem sensible for anyone? Any suggestions on what could be
> > > broken?
> >
> > Do the xobject_id values have other negative numbers or is -1 just a
> > special case? The only thing I can think of is a corrupted index on
> > xobject_id.
>
> minimal xobject_id in source table is 1000.
So just to be clear there is and never has been a -1 value for xobject_id in the
source table?
So a select count(*) from sssssss.xobjects where xobject_id = -1 on the source
table yields 0?
> depesz
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@gmail.com