On 12 May 2010, at 12:01, Glyn Astill wrote:
> Did you not mention that this server was a slony slave at some point though?
>
> Just because you have removed slony, and the error comes from postgresql itself does not mean the corruption was not
causedby misuse of slony.
Indeed. I wonder if "when we ere adding/removing slony to the system for Nth time (due to it sometimes going out of
sync)"may be caused by that as well.
> --- On Wed, 12/5/10, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 8.3.7, 'cache lookup failed' for a table
>> To: "Alban Hertroys" <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl>
>> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
>> Date: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010, 10:57
>> no it is not slony related.
>> It is a postgresql problem.
>>
>> my original post:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-05/msg00402.php
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
>
>
>
Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
!DSPAM:737,4bea7e6d10417427874228!
