On Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:15:22 am hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 07:00:30AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > > I also verified that there are no concurrent updates that would set > > > xobject_id to -1, so it's not a problem of isolation. > > > > > > During the night I repeated the procedure and the rows that got > > > duplicated seem to be the same - at the very least - the same > > > magic_id. > > > > > > Does above seem sensible for anyone? Any suggestions on what could be > > > broken? > > > > Do the xobject_id values have other negative numbers or is -1 just a > > special case? The only thing I can think of is a corrupted index on > > xobject_id. > > minimal xobject_id in source table is 1000. So just to be clear there is and never has been a -1 value for xobject_id in the source table? So a select count(*) from sssssss.xobjects where xobject_id = -1 on the source table yields 0? > depesz -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxx -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
