Hi All, I see there were too many good fixes recently for pgpool. Any idea when I can get the new release of pgpool?
Thanks Deepak On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:42 PM, DM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tatsuo, > > Thank you for your fix. > I had same issues as Nimesh. I applied this patch and i am not getting the > below error anymore. > > *ERROR: prepared statement > "S_5" > already exists* > > Thanks for your help again. > > Thanks > Deepak > > >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:42:46 +0900 (JST) >> From: Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool probelms >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected], [email protected] >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> Sorry for delay. Akio Ishida found a cause of this bug. Here is the >> patches made by him which should fix your problem. Please try... >> >> $ diff -u pool_process_query.c.org pool_process_query.c >> --- pool_process_query.c.org 2009-05-04 19:53:29.000000000 +0900 >> +++ pool_process_query.c 2009-07-15 13:03:25.000000000 +0900 >> @@ -2051,13 +2051,13 @@ >> >> if (qcnt >= qn) >> { >> - if (qcnt >= qn + prepared_list.cnt) >> + if (prepared_list.cnt == 0) >> { >> reset_prepared_list(&prepared_list); >> return 2; >> } >> >> - send_deallocate(backend, &prepared_list, qcnt - qn); >> + send_deallocate(backend, &prepared_list, 0); >> return 1; >> } >> >> >> -- >> Tatsuo Ishii >> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan >> >> > Hi Tatsuo, >> > >> > Can you let me know, what might be wrong here? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Nimesh. >> > >> > >> > On 6/17/09, Nimesh Satam <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Tatsuo, >> > > >> > > I am getting this on pgpool-II 2.2.2. I don't have any case studies >> ready >> > > at this moment. But here are the data_logs below in the mail which >> might >> > > help you. Three statements were passed S_1, S_2, S_3, but when the >> user >> > > disconnected only S_1, S_3 got DEALLOCATED. Same happened at the end >> when >> > > S_1 and S_3 were prepared after disconnection only S_1 got >> DEALLOCATED. Will >> > > this be causing the problem. >> > > >> > > *2009-06-17 03:15:07 PDT [11025]: [3-1] LOG: duration: 0.437 ms >> parse >> > > S_1: BEGIN* >> > > 2009-06-17 03:15:07 PDT [11025]: [4-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms bind >> S_1: >> > > BEGIN >> > > *2009-06-17 03:15:07 PDT [11025]: [13-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms >> parse >> > > S_2: COMMIT* >> > > 2009-06-17 03:15:13 PDT [11025]: [14-1] LOG: duration: 0.042 ms bind >> S_1: >> > > BEGIN >> > > *2009-06-17 03:16:10 PDT [11025]: [8071-1] LOG: duration: 0.010 ms >> parse >> > > S_3: ROLLBACK* >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43176-1] LOG: duration: 0.025 ms >> > > statement: BEGIN >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43177-1] LOG: duration: 0.019 ms >> > > statement: RESET ALL >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43178-1] LOG: duration: 0.106 ms >> > > statement: COMMIT >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43179-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms >> > > statement: BEGIN >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43180-1] LOG: duration: 0.021 ms >> > > statement: SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION DEFAULT >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43181-1] LOG: duration: 0.011 ms >> > > statement: COMMIT >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43182-1] LOG: duration: 0.007 ms >> > > statement: BEGIN >> > > *2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43183-1] LOG: duration: 0.019 ms >> > > statement: DEALLOCATE "S_1"* >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43184-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms >> > > statement: COMMIT >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43185-1] LOG: duration: 0.007 ms >> > > statement: BEGIN >> > > *2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43186-1] LOG: duration: 0.010 ms >> > > statement: DEALLOCATE "S_3"* >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43187-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms >> > > statement: COMMIT >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:15 PDT [11025]: [43188-1] LOG: duration: 0.023 ms >> parse >> > > S_1: BEGIN >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:15 PDT [11025]: [43189-1] LOG: duration: 0.003 ms >> bind >> > > S_1: BEGIN* >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:16 PDT [11025]: [43286-1] ERROR: prepared statement >> "S_2" >> > > already exists* >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:17 PDT [11025]: [43288-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms >> bind >> > > S_1: BEGIN >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:21 PDT [11025]: [45950-1] LOG: duration: 0.010 ms >> parse >> > > S_3: COMMIT >> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:31 PDT [11025]: [45951-1] LOG: duration: 0.027 ms >> bind >> > > S_1: BEGIN >> > > 2009-06-17 03:25:58 PDT [11025]: [70834-1] LOG: duration: 0.034 ms >> bind >> > > S_1: BEGIN >> > > *2009-06-17 03:25:58 PDT [11025]: [70888-1] LOG: duration: 0.012 ms >> > > statement: DEALLOCATE "S_1"* >> > > >> > > We have kept the *connection_cache = true *and the *reset_query_list = >> > > 'ABORT; RESET ALL; SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION DEFAULT'* >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Nimesh. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> > >> If you are getting this with pgpool-II 2.2.2, please send a >> > >> self-contained test case if possible. >> > >> -- >> > >> Tatsuo Ishii >> > >> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan >> > >> >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > >> > >> > We are using pgpool-II in Master-slave, Loadbalance mode and are >> facing >> > >> > issues with the same. Can anybody lets us know what's going wrong >> here? >> > >> > >> > >> > 1) We are getting many entries in the database logs with following >> > >> errors: >> > >> > 2009-06-16 21:42:47 PDT [11040]: [2486-1] ERROR: prepared >> statement >> > >> "S_2" >> > >> > already exists >> > >> > 2009-06-16 21:43:04 PDT [11040]: [2535-1] ERROR: prepared >> statement >> > >> "S_3" >> > >> > already exists >> > >> > 2009-06-16 21:43:48 PDT [11040]: [2546-1] ERROR: prepared >> statement >> > >> "S_4" >> > >> > already exists >> > >> > 2009-06-16 21:43:49 PDT [11040]: [2564-1] ERROR: prepared >> statement >> > >> "S_5" >> > >> > already exists >> > >> > 2009-06-16 21:44:49 PDT [11040]: [2576-1] ERROR: prepared >> statement >> > >> "S_6" >> > >> > already exists >> > >> > >> > >> > This causes the application to fail. {This was supposed to be fixed >> in >> > >> 2.2.1 >> > >> > and later versions?} >> > >> > >> > >> > 2) We are seeing stuck queries when connecting through pgpool. ps U >> > >> postgres >> > >> > shows all the queries in bind state: >> > >> > 5003 ? Ss 0:52 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(52218) >> BIND >> > >> > 5004 ? Ss 0:28 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(52220) >> BIND >> > >> > 18961 ? Ss 0:54 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(34508) >> BIND >> > >> > 18962 ? Ss 0:39 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(34510) >> BIND >> > >> > >> > >> > This queries are not performing any activity and seem to have >> hanged. >> > >> > >> > >> > Both applications in question are Java applications and we are >> using the >> > >> > postgres version 8.3.3 >> > >> > >> > >> > Any help here would be much appreciated. >> > >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Nimesh. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pgpool-general mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general >> >> >> End of Pgpool-general Digest, Vol 56, Issue 16 >> ********************************************** >> > >
_______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
