On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:42 AM, MauMau <maumau...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > >> Since we've fixed a couple of relatively nasty bugs recently, the core >> committee has determined that it'd be a good idea to push out PG update >> releases soon. The current plan is to wrap on Monday Feb 4 for public >> announcement Thursday Feb 7. If you're aware of any bug fixes you think >> ought to get included, now's the time to get them done ... > > > I've just encountered a serious problem, and I really wish it would be fixed > in the upcoming minor release. Could you tell me whether this is already > fixed and will be included? > > I'm using synchronous streaming replication with PostgreSQL 9.1.6 on Linux. > There are two nodes: one is primary and the other is a standby. When I > performed failover tests by doing "pg_ctl stop -mi" against the primary > while some applications are reading/writing the database, the standby > crashed while it was performing recovery after receiving promote request: > > ... > LOG: archive recovery complete > WARNING: page 506747 of relation base/482272/482304 was uninitialized > PANIC: WAL contains references to invalid pages > LOG: startup process (PID 8938) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted > LOG: terminating any other active server processes > (the log ends here) > > The mentioned relation is an index. The contents of the referred page was > all zeros when I looked at it with "od -t x $PGDATA/base/482272/482304.3" > after the crash. The subsequent pages of the same file had valid-seeming > contents. > > I searched through PostgreSQL mailing lists with "WAL contains references to > invalid pages", and i found 19 messages. Some people encountered similar > problem. There were some discussions regarding those problems (Tom and > Simon Riggs commented), but those discussions did not reach a solution. > > I also found a discussion which might relate to this problem. Does this fix > the problem? > > [BUG] lag of minRecoveryPont in archive recovery > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20121206.130458.170549097.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp
Yes. Could you check whether you can reproduce the problem on the latest REL9_2_STABLE? Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
