Andrew Hammond <andrew.george.hammond@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hmm, that's pretty interesting ... are there any nearby autovacuums of >> pg_toast_2619? > Several, both before and after the error message: Well, it seems clear that somehow the vacuum deleted a toast tuple that the other statement was about to fetch, but it's not clear how this could be. The pg_statistic fetch must have come from the planner, which should always be called with a transaction snapshot established, and that ought to protect it against vacuum deleting anything that could be visible to SnapshotNow. Weird. [ pokes around for a bit ... ] Hmm, can you say how the failing query was submitted, exactly? I'm wondering if it came in via simple Query (PQexec) or extended-query protocol (anything with parameters). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
