Re: [HACKERS] HSavage bug in Postgresql beta? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Chris Bitmead
Subject Re: [HACKERS] HSavage bug in Postgresql beta?
Date
Msg-id 372658D5.249AD32A@bigfoot.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] HSavage bug in Postgresql beta?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Well I destroyed the database and recreated it, and the problem didn't
happen any more. So unfortunately I can't reproduce it now.

I can tell you that the "approved" field that was causing the problem
was added with an ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN statement. That's the most
"unusual" thing about the situation. Maybe I'll just have to put it down
to an aberation :-()



Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Chris Bitmead <chris.bitmead@bigfoot.com> writes:
> > SELECT story.approved, story.oid FROM story, webuser, category* WHERE
> > story.webuser = webuser.oid AND story.category = category.oid and
> > approved;
> > [ fails to find tuples it should find ]
> 
> Youch.  I could not duplicate that here on a toy example, which may
> mean there is a recently-fixed bug, or it may just mean that there
> are additional conditions required to trigger the bug.
> 
> What does EXPLAIN say about the plans used for the two queries?
> 
>                         regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "J.V."
Date:
Subject: Looking for an old LabVIEW SQL toolkit licence...
Next
From: Vadim Mikheev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Lock freeze ? in MVCC