Обсуждение: BUG #13862: Duplicated rows for a table with primary key
The following bug has been logged on the website: Bug reference: 13862 Logged by: krishna chaitanya Email address: y.chaitanya@tcs.com PostgreSQL version: 9.1.2 Operating system: SUSE Linux E nterprise Server 11 SP2 Description: we have an issue in production server where the tables with primary key constraint are duplicated. Complete row is duplicated with identical values . So please help us to know the root cause for this. We are able to delete the duplicates, but not sure what cause this issue.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:51 AM, <y.chaitanya@tcs.com> wrote: > The following bug has been logged on the website: > > Bug reference: 13862 > Logged by: krishna chaitanya > Email address: y.chaitanya@tcs.com > PostgreSQL version: 9.1.2 > Operating system: SUSE Linux E nterprise Server 11 SP2 > Description: > > we have an issue in production server where the tables with primary key > constraint are duplicated. Complete row is duplicated with identical > values > . > > So please help us to know the root cause for this. We are able to delete > the > duplicates, but not sure what cause this issue > You are going to have to provide more information=E2=80=8B than this. You are also using an ancient 9.1 release; 9.1.19 is current. David J.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:18 AM, <y.chaitanya@tcs.com> wrote: > > > From: Y Chaitanya/CHN/TCS > To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> > Cc: "pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org> > Date: 14-01-16 04:27 PM > Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #13862: Duplicated rows for a table with > primary key > ------------------------------ > > > HI David, > Thanks for the reply, > > Yes I agree that it is old version, But can you let us know if there are > any old bugs that violates the primary key. > > This is why we have release notes. If nothing there gives you a clue then the two screenshots you've provided are insufficient diagnostic - though they do indeed show that at some point you had a problem. A simple action to take is to remove all duplicates and then reindex. It may be simple corruption at hand. It happens - usually due to hardware issues. David J.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:50 AM, <y.chaitanya@tcs.com> wrote: > HI David, > > For us the problem occurred in postgresql 9.1.2 and in release notes for > 9.1.3 found below link: > > pgsql: Fix CLUSTER/VACUUM FULL for toast values owned byrecently-updat > <http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=3Dpostgresql.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3D= b994c57a8032f55f816768ee55a677e03190abae> > > So can you please confirm if the primary key violation is due the bug > mentioned in the above fix.? > If you need any other information ,other than screen shot please let me > know. > =E2=80=8BI doubt that your problem is related.. =E2=80=8BDavid J.=E2=80=8B
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:56 AM, <y.chaitanya@tcs.com> wrote: > HI David, > > Thanks for your time, > > For us , the basic primary key feature is violated, So there must be > some reason for this, Please let me know if you need any other informati= on > for finding the root cause. > Also some advice to avoid this will be helpful. > =E2=80=8BI neither have the time nor expertise to play email technical supp= ort for an issue like this. Upgrade to the newest patch release, remove the duplicates, and reindex. If the problem recurs turn on detailed logging and try to isolate the process and related queries that is introducing the duplicates. =E2=80=8BOr just wait around and see if someone else wants to pick up torch= and help you for free. Or contact a professional services company and pay someone to do the same. The community does take pride in the quality of its software but if you cannot provide a re-producible test case on the most recent release of PostgreSQL no one is going to be able to fix the problem should one even exist. It is most likely assumed to either already have been fixed in a more recent release or the cause is isolated to something that is unique to your situation or a transient issue that can be cleared up using the tools (e.g., reindex) provided. David J.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:26 PM, David G. Johnston < david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:56 AM, <y.chaitanya@tcs.com> wrote: > >> HI David, >> >> Thanks for your time, >> >> For us , the basic primary key feature is violated, So there must be >> some reason for this, Please let me know if you need any other informat= ion >> for finding the root cause. >> Also some advice to avoid this will be helpful. >> > > =E2=80=8BI neither have the time nor expertise to play email technical su= pport for > an issue like this. > More specifically, OP please take some time to follow this guide: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems -- Alex
SEkgRGF2aWQsDQoNClRoYW5rcyBmb3IgeW91ciB0aW1lLA0KDQpGb3IgdXMgLCB0aGUgYmFzaWMg cHJpbWFyeSBrZXkgIGZlYXR1cmUgaXMgIHZpb2xhdGVkLCBTbyB0aGVyZSBtdXN0IGJlIA0Kc29t ZSAgcmVhc29uIGZvciB0aGlzLCBQbGVhc2UgbGV0IG1lIGtub3cgaWYgeW91IG5lZWQgYW55IG90 aGVyIA0KaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gZm9yIGZpbmRpbmcgdGhlIHJvb3QgY2F1c2UuDQpBbHNvIHNvbWUg YWR2aWNlICB0byBhdm9pZCB0aGlzIHdpbGwgYmUgaGVscGZ1bC4NCiANCkJlc3QgUmVnYXJkcw0K S3Jpc2huYSBDaGFpdGFueWENCg0KDQoNCkZyb206ICAgIkRhdmlkIEcuIEpvaG5zdG9uIiA8ZGF2 aWQuZy5qb2huc3RvbkBnbWFpbC5jb20+DQpUbzogICAgIHkuY2hhaXRhbnlhQHRjcy5jb20NCkNj OiAgICAgInBnc3FsLWJ1Z3NAcG9zdGdyZXNxbC5vcmciIDxwZ3NxbC1idWdzQHBvc3RncmVzcWwu b3JnPg0KRGF0ZTogICAxNC0wMS0xNiAwOTo0OSBQTQ0KU3ViamVjdDogICAgICAgIFJlOiBbQlVH U10gQlVHICMxMzg2MjogRHVwbGljYXRlZCByb3dzIGZvciBhIHRhYmxlIHdpdGggDQpwcmltYXJ5 IGtleQ0KDQoNCg0KT24gVGh1LCBKYW4gMTQsIDIwMTYgYXQgODo1MCBBTSwgPHkuY2hhaXRhbnlh QHRjcy5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KSEkgRGF2aWQsIA0KDQpGb3IgdXMgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gb2NjdXJy ZWQgaW4gcG9zdGdyZXNxbCA5LjEuMiAgYW5kIGluIHJlbGVhc2Ugbm90ZXMgZm9yIA0KOS4xLjMg Zm91bmQgYmVsb3cgIGxpbms6IA0KDQpwZ3NxbDogRml4IENMVVNURVIvVkFDVVVNIEZVTEwgZm9y IHRvYXN0IHZhbHVlcyBvd25lZCBieXJlY2VudGx5LXVwZGF0IA0KDQpTbyBjYW4geW91IHBsZWFz ZSBjb25maXJtIGlmIHRoZSBwcmltYXJ5IGtleSB2aW9sYXRpb24gaXMgZHVlIHRoZSBidWcgDQpt ZW50aW9uZWQgaW4gdGhlIGFib3ZlICBmaXguPyANCklmIHlvdSBuZWVkIGFueSBvdGhlciBpbmZv cm1hdGlvbiAgLG90aGVyIHRoYW4gc2NyZWVuIHNob3QgcGxlYXNlIGxldCBtZSANCmtub3cuIA0K DQrigItJIGRvdWJ0IHRoYXQgeW91ciBwcm9ibGVtIGlzIHJlbGF0ZWQuLg0KDQrigItEYXZpZCBK LuKAiw0KDQoNCj09PT09LS0tLS09PT09PS0tLS0tPT09PT0KTm90aWNlOiBUaGUgaW5mb3JtYXRp b24gY29udGFpbmVkIGluIHRoaXMgZS1tYWlsCm1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kL29yIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIHRv IGl0IG1heSBjb250YWluIApjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgb3IgcHJpdmlsZWdlZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbi4g SWYgeW91IGFyZSAKbm90IHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCByZWNpcGllbnQsIGFueSBkaXNzZW1pbmF0aW9u LCB1c2UsIApyZXZpZXcsIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiwgcHJpbnRpbmcgb3IgY29weWluZyBvZiB0aGUg CmluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGNvbnRhaW5lZCBpbiB0aGlzIGUtbWFpbCBtZXNzYWdlIAphbmQvb3IgYXR0 YWNobWVudHMgdG8gaXQgYXJlIHN0cmljdGx5IHByb2hpYml0ZWQuIElmIAp5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNl aXZlZCB0aGlzIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24gaW4gZXJyb3IsIApwbGVhc2Ugbm90aWZ5IHVzIGJ5IHJl cGx5IGUtbWFpbCBvciB0ZWxlcGhvbmUgYW5kIAppbW1lZGlhdGVseSBhbmQgcGVybWFuZW50bHkg ZGVsZXRlIHRoZSBtZXNzYWdlIAphbmQgYW55IGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzLiBUaGFuayB5b3UKCgo=
HI David, For us the problem occurred in postgresql 9.1.2 and in release notes for 9.1.3 found below link: pgsql: Fix CLUSTER/VACUUM FULL for toast values owned byrecently-updat So can you please confirm if the primary key violation is due the bug mentioned in the above fix.? If you need any other information ,other than screen shot please let me know. Thanks& Regards Krishna Chaitanya From: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> To: y.chaitanya@tcs.com Cc: "pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org> Date: 14-01-16 08:53 PM Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #13862: Duplicated rows for a table with primary key On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:18 AM, <y.chaitanya@tcs.com> wrote: From: Y Chaitanya/CHN/TCS To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> Cc: "pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org> Date: 14-01-16 04:27 PM Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #13862: Duplicated rows for a table with primary key HI David, Thanks for the reply, Yes I agree that it is old version, But can you let us know if there are any old bugs that violates the primary key. This is why we have release notes. If nothing there gives you a clue then the two screenshots you've provided are insufficient diagnostic - though they do indeed show that at some point you had a problem. A simple action to take is to remove all duplicates and then reindex. It may be simple corruption at hand. It happens - usually due to hardware issues. David J. =====-----=====-----===== Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments. Thank you