Pavan Deolasee escribió: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Will look more into it, but thought this might be useful for others to > > spot the problem. > > > > And here is some more forensic info about one of the pages having > duplicate tuples. > > jjanes=# select *, xmin, xmax, ctid from foo where index IN (select > index from foo group by index having count(*) > 1 ORDER by index) > ORDER by index LIMIT 3; > index | count | xmin | xmax | ctid > -------+-------+------------+------+----------- > 219 | 353 | 2100345903 | 0 | (150,98) > 219 | 354 | 2100346051 | 0 | (150,101) > 219 | 464 | 2101601086 | 0 | (150,126) > (3 rows)
Hm, if the foreign key patch is to blame, this sounds like these tuples had a different set of XMAX hint bits and a different Xmax, and they were clobbered by something like vacuum or page pruning. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
