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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption
Date
Msg-id 4945.946504744@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
List pgsql-hackers
Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com> writes:
>> 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.

Bingo ...

> I saw the message about  lengths in indexes,
> but howcome this is relevant for procedures?

In 6.5 (and before), there's an index on the prosrc field of pg_proc,
ie, the definition of the procedure.  There's not any real good reason
to have such an index, so we've removed it for 7.0 ... but in 6.5 it's
there and it creates problems if you have long procedure definitions :-(
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: subquery performance and EXISTS
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: subquery performance and EXISTS