Re: using index "pg_toast_..." despite IgnoreSystemIndexes

not sure why the second message posted a day after the first.  It
had bounced...

sorry about that.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:51:05 -0400 Michael Wood
<esiotrot@gmail.com> wrote:
>No, you misread that, but Tom has already replied to his other
>message.
>
>On 8/29/12, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:33:22AM -0400, lsq@nym.hush.com
>wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> After an upgrade to 8.4.12 from 8.4.10 we vacuum/analyzed the
>db.
>>
>> You downgraded a server?  Depending on the fixes in minor
>releases, that
>> might not work.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>----------
>>
>>
>>> Postgres is running in standalone mode at this point.
>>>
>>>
>>> vacuumdb --echo --analyze --all --verbose -U sysdba
>>>
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    INFO:  analyzing
>>> "information_schema.sql_features"
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    INFO:  "sql_features": scanned 7 of 7
>pages,
>>> containing 649 live rows and 0 dead rows; 649 rows in sample,
>649
>>> estimated total rows
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    WARNING:  using index
>"pg_toast_2619_index"
>>> despite IgnoreSystemIndexes
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    WARNING:  using index
>"pg_toast_2619_index"
>>> despite IgnoreSystemIndexes
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    WARNING:  using index
>"pg_toast_2619_index"
>>> despite IgnoreSystemIndexes
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    WARNING:  using index
>"pg_toast_2619_index"
>>> despite IgnoreSystemIndexes
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    INFO:  vacuuming
>>> "information_schema.sql_implementation_info"
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    INFO:  "sql_implementation_info": found 0
>>> removable, 12 nonremovable row versions in 1 out of 1 pages
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    DETAIL:  0 dead row versions cannot be
>removed
>>> yet.
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    There were 1 unused item pointers.
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    0 pages are entirely empty.
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
>>> 07/31/12 04:09:57    INFO:  vacuuming "pg_toast.pg_toast_11452"
>>>
>>>
>>> I see the warning generated in systable_beginscan_ordered as a
>>> warning, and then it proceeds to do the work anyway.
>>>
>>> It appears as if this is benign.  Is that the case?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent via pgsql-novice mailing list (pgsql-
>novice@postgresql.org)
>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-novice
>>
>> --
>>   Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
>>   EnterpriseDB
>http://enterprisedb.com
>>
>>   + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-novice mailing list (pgsql-novice@postgresql.org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-novice
>>
>
>
>--
>Michael Wood <esiotrot@gmail.com>