Re: Why is parula failing? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Why is parula failing?
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvrEEkNnq_Xf5w-KFBhhNnUs3oYhr8EUtQxPy-2JU3hw-A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why is parula failing?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Why is parula failing?
Re: Why is parula failing?
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 12:36, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> So yeah, if we could have log_autovacuum_min_duration = 0 perhaps
> that would yield a clue.

FWIW, I agree with your earlier statement about it looking very much
like auto-vacuum has run on that table, but equally, if something like
the pg_index record was damaged we could get the same plan change.

We could also do something like the attached just in case we're
barking up the wrong tree.

David

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Flushing large data immediately in pqcomm
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Why is parula failing?