>>> On 16.06.2006 at 23:21:21, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > Yea. Where you using WAL archiving? We will have a fix in 8.1.5 to > prevent multiple archivers from starting. Perhaps that was a cause. > Not at the time, no. The rename in question was just a regular WAL segment rename.
> Yes, I just reread that thread. I also am confused where to go from > here. > Yeah, it's unfortunate that our best theory (a _commit on a deleted file) just didn't seem to be supported by the evidence. Although the servers which see a heavy SELECT load are now Linux, we still have a couple of Windows servers receiving the normal replication traffic. We still get regular fsync errors after the scheduled CLUSTERs so if you do find a fix (or come up with a new theory), there's a test bed there (at least for now). > Were you the only one use Win32 in heavy usage? You were on Win2003. > Were there some bugs in the OS that got fixed later. ... > Yep. What has me baffled is why no one else is seeing the problem. > We had a rash of reports, and now all is quiet. > We might be somewhat more susceptible than most too. Due to the way our middle tier parcels out queries, some connections might sit idle for a long time. Per Tom's explanation in the original thread, this is an important factor. Ultimately if a concurrent rename isn't possible in Windows (and that looks likely), it's going to be a problem as things stand now. Pete ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly