Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.21.0005041252040.51171-100000@thelab.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> >>>> This worry anyone? :)
> >>>> NOTICE:  Index pg_group_sysid_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (0) IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1).
> >>>> Recreate the index.
> >>>> NOTICE:  Index pg_group_name_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (0) IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1).
> >>>> Recreate the index.
> 
> It occurred to me that this would be the likely symptom if a CREATE
> GROUP or ALTER GROUP command had neglected to update the indexes on
> pg_group.  However, I can't spot any such problem in the code nor
> cause it to happen by hand.  Anyone else have an idea?
> 
> BTW Marc, do you happen to know what sequence of user and/or group
> create/alter/drops might have been executed on your setup?

the only group that is in pg_group is:

template1=> select * from pg_group;
groname      |grosysid|grolist       
-------------+--------+--------------
trends_acctng|       0|{70,1007,1008}
(1 row)

and it was added ~2 weeks ago ... 

i tried deleting and re-adding it this morning, now it says (1 of 2) vs (0
of 1) ...

I had a server lock up the other day running an RC2 code base, which a
'truss -p' on postmaster produced nothing ... I did a kill on the server,
upgraded to the latest code and restarted it, after which this problem
occur'd ...

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? )
Next
From: "Ross J. Reedstrom"
Date:
Subject: Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? )