Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption

Tom Lane wrote:

> pg_proc_prosrc_index is the problem, eh?  I'll bet a nickel that you're
> seeing still another manifestation of btree's problems with oversized
> index entries.  (See recent thread 'Error "vacuum pg_proc"'.)
>
> Check to see if you have any functions whose definitions exceed 2700
> bytes, eg with
>         select proname from pg_proc where length(prosrc) > 2700;
> If so, you need to rewrite them to be smaller, perhaps by breaking
> them into multiple functions.

Yep, I've got two of those. I saw the message about  lengths in indexes,
but howcome this is relevant for procedures? I thought it would only be an
index on name and a pointer into pg_proc? Just asking because I want to
understand how this works.

I'll rewrite them and see whether that fixes it. Thanks a lot for the
help!

Adriaan