Обсуждение: BUG #8891: Duplicate Primary Key
The following bug has been logged on the website: Bug reference: 8891 Logged by: Anjali Arora Email address: anjali_524@yahoo.co.in PostgreSQL version: 8.4.0 Operating system: CentOS 5 Description: Hi all, I have been using pg_dump/pg_restore to backup and restore the database in our product for quite sometime. One of our customers reported an issue with multiple entries for a field marked as primary key. After investigation of the logs we found the multiple entires were created during pg_restore and the primary key constraint on the field could not be created due to unique constraint violation. Even on internet I came across the Postgres BUG 8382 & 7760 reported in the past for this issue. The Postgres version on which the issue was reported is 8.2.2 We have upgraded our Postgres version to 9.0.4 in the current product release and I verified the issue fix information into postgres release notes 9.0.4, 9.0.15, and 9.1 but could not find anything related to this issue. Please let me know in which release this issue got fixed. Thanks, Anjali
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, <anjali_524@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > The Postgres version on which the issue was reported is 8.2.2 Do you realize that this version was released almost 7 years ago? The last bugfix release in the 8.2 series was 8.2.23, only 2 years ago. If you don't apply bugfixes then you *will* eventually hit bugs. > I verified the issue fix information into postgres release notes > 9.0.4, 9.0.15, and 9.1 but could not find anything related to this issue. It was probably some sort of index corruption, which allowed duplicate values to be inserted. There have been a dozen bugs of this kind fixed and it's hard to tell which one. > We have upgraded our Postgres version to 9.0.4 Wait, what? 9.0.15 is the most recent version in the 9.0 series. You should *always* use the newest minor version in a series and update when new versions are released. Otherwise you will hit bugs again that have been fixed for years. Regards, Marti
Thanks a lot Marti for your response.=0A=A0=0AThanks,=0AAnjali=0A=0A=0A=0AO= n Monday, 20 January 2014 3:27 PM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote:= =0A =0AOn Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM,=A0 <anjali_524@yahoo.co.in> wrote= :=0A> The Postgres version on which the issue was reported is 8.2.2=0A=0ADo= you realize that this version was released almost 7 years ago? The=0Alast = bugfix release in the 8.2 series was 8.2.23, only 2 years ago. If=0Ayou don= 't apply bugfixes then you *will* eventually hit bugs.=0A=0A> I verified th= e issue fix information into postgres release notes=0A> 9.0.4, 9.0.15, and = 9.1 but could not find anything related to this issue.=0A=0AIt was probably= some sort of index corruption, which allowed duplicate=0Avalues to be inse= rted. There have been a dozen bugs of this kind fixed=0Aand it's hard to te= ll which one.=0A=0A> We have upgraded our Postgres version to 9.0.4=0A=0AWa= it, what? 9.0.15 is the most recent version in the 9.0 series. You=0Ashould= *always* use the newest minor version in a series and update=0Awhen new ve= rsions are released. Otherwise you will hit bugs again that=0Ahave been fix= ed for years.=0A=0ARegards,=0AMarti=0A=0A=0A=0A-- =0ASent via pgsql-bugs ma= iling list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)=0ATo make changes to your subscripti= on:=0Ahttp://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs