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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
Date
Msg-id 4044.946483296@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption  (Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
List pgsql-hackers
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 withselect 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.

7.0 should fix this problem, but it's a real hazard in 6.5.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] Index scan on CIDR field ?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: subquery performance and EXISTS