Thread: ERROR: could not find tuple for attrdef NNNNNNNN
Hi list,
I'm trying to drop a table but I'm receiving the following error,
pos=# drop table txnmanhours cascade;
ERROR: could not find tuple for attrdef 10734091
Here's my current version,
pos=# select version();
version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 8.1.8 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc-4.0.gcc-opt (GCC) 4.0.3 (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)
(1 row)
What could have been the issue here?
Thanks,
Ridvan
--
リヅバン バルヨス
ridvan.baluyos@qualservcentral.com
http://ridvan.baluyos.net
http://www.onxiam.com/people/rbaluyos
Registered Linux User #439466
Registered Ubuntu User #16034
Q: Have you heard of the Object-Oriented way to get wealthy?
A: Inheritance.
I'm trying to drop a table but I'm receiving the following error,
pos=# drop table txnmanhours cascade;
ERROR: could not find tuple for attrdef 10734091
Here's my current version,
pos=# select version();
version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 8.1.8 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc-4.0.gcc-opt (GCC) 4.0.3 (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)
(1 row)
What could have been the issue here?
Thanks,
Ridvan
--
リヅバン バルヨス
ridvan.baluyos@qualservcentral.com
http://ridvan.baluyos.net
http://www.onxiam.com/people/rbaluyos
Registered Linux User #439466
Registered Ubuntu User #16034
Q: Have you heard of the Object-Oriented way to get wealthy?
A: Inheritance.
"Ridvan Lakas ng Bayan S. Baluyos" <ridvan@baluyos.net> writes: > I'm trying to drop a table but I'm receiving the following error, > pos=# drop table txnmanhours cascade; > ERROR: could not find tuple for attrdef 10734091 Hm, what do you get from select * from pg_attrdef where oid = 10734091; If there is a hit, what table does adrelid correspond to? > Here's my current version, > PostgreSQL 8.1.8 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc-4.0.gcc-opt > (GCC) 4.0.3 (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5) Not too long ago we fixed an issue wherein a cascaded delete could try to delete objects more than once, which could give rise to an error message of this ilk. I didn't think that 8.1 was vulnerable though. You might have found some new bug in that logic. Does txnmanhours participate in any interesting mutual-reference situations? regards, tom lane