On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Have you read the thread about bug #6200? =A0I'm suspicious that this is
> the same or similar problem, with a slightly different visible symptom
> because of pickier hardware. =A0I'm afraid we don't know what's going on
> yet there either, but the idea that t_hoff is wrong gives us a new line
> of thought.
I went looking for commits that might be relevant to this that are new
in 9.0.6, also present in 9.1.2 (per 6200), and related to t_hoff, and
came up with this one:
Branch: master [039680aff] 2011-11-04 23:22:50 -0400
Branch: REL9_1_STABLE Release: REL9_1_2 [8bfc2b5a8] 2011-11-04 23:23:06 -04=
00
Branch: REL9_0_STABLE Release: REL9_0_6 [b07b2bdc5] 2011-11-04 23:23:16 -04=
00
Branch: REL8_4_STABLE Release: REL8_4_10 [23998fe99] 2011-11-04 23:23:24 -0=
400
Branch: REL8_3_STABLE Release: REL8_3_17 [c34088fde] 2011-11-04 23:23:33 -0=
400
Branch: REL8_2_STABLE Release: REL8_2_23 [73e8ee9eb] 2011-11-04 23:23:38 -0=
400
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri Nov 4 23:23:16 2011 -0400
Don't assume that a tuple's header size is unchanged during toasting.
Mind you, I have no evidence that this is related; it's just the only
thing that pops out at me.
--=20
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
