Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Adriaan Joubert
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
Date
Msg-id 386A7658.13933C0A@albourne.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Index corruption  (Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

> pg_proc_prosrc_index is the problem, eh?  I'll bet a nickel that you're
> seeing still another manifestation of btree's problems with oversized
> index entries.  (See recent thread 'Error "vacuum pg_proc"'.)
>
> Check to see if you have any functions whose definitions exceed 2700
> bytes, eg with
>         select proname from pg_proc where length(prosrc) > 2700;
> If so, you need to rewrite them to be smaller, perhaps by breaking
> them into multiple functions.

Yep, I've got two of those. I saw the message about  lengths in indexes,
but howcome this is relevant for procedures? I thought it would only be an
index on name and a pointer into pg_proc? Just asking because I want to
understand how this works.

I'll rewrite them and see whether that fixes it. Thanks a lot for the
help!

Adriaan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Using aggregate in HAVING
Next
From: Mike Mascari
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Using aggregate in HAVING