Warren Little wrote:
> Sorry,
> here are the attachments.
> Not sure about the statistics question, I have done a vacuum analyze on
> every table in the database.
The problem is that the planner is unable to appropiately order OUTER
JOINs in released versions. In 8.2 it can do some reordering, so
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 09:36 -0700, Jeff Frost wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > What I'd suggest is resuming the test after making sure you've killed
> > off any old archivers, and seeing if you can make any progress on
> > reproducing the original problem. We definitely need a
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
What I'd suggest is resuming the test after making sure you've killed
off any old archivers, and seeing if you can make any progress on
reproducing the original problem. We definitely need a
multiple-archiver interlock, but I think that must be unrelated to
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, the fact that there's only one archiver *now* doesn't mean there
wasn't more than one when the problem happened. The orphaned archiver
would eventually quit.
Do you have logs that would let you check when the production postmaster
was restarted?
I l
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 12:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Well, the fact that there's only one archiver *now* doesn't mean there
> > wasn't more than one when the problem happened. The orphaned archiver
> > would eventually quit.
>
> But, actually, nevermind: we have explained the failure
I wrote:
> Well, the fact that there's only one archiver *now* doesn't mean there
> wasn't more than one when the problem happened. The orphaned archiver
> would eventually quit.
But, actually, nevermind: we have explained the failures you were seeing
in the test setup, but a multiple-active-arch
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hurray! Unfortunately, the postmaster on the original troubled server almost
> never gets restarted, and in fact only has only one archiver process running
> right now. Drat!
Well, the fact that there's only one archiver *now* doesn't mean there
wasn't m
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, there's our smoking gun. IIRC, all the failures you showed us are
consistent with race conditions caused by multiple archiver processes
all trying to do the same tasks concurrently.
Do you frequently stop and restart the postmaster? Because I don't s
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Do you think the postmaster on 5432 is trying to archive the other
postmaster's WAL files somehow?
Not as long as they aren't in the same data directory ;-). What Simon
was wondering about was whether an archiver pro
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 10:08 -0700, Jeff Frost wrote:
> May 18 08:00:18 discord postgres[20228]: [129-1] LOG: archived transaction
> log file "0001007F"
> May 18 08:00:41 discord postgres[20573]: [254-1] LOG: archived transaction
> log file "0001007F"
> May 18 08
I was doing some tests, while doing so I needed to enter some
100.000.000 records in a table. That took almost one GB of disk space,
df -kh shows I have some 130 MB of free disk space.
I did dropdb on that test database, but empty space still shows 130 MB.
How can I reclaim (reget?) space used by
11 matches
Mail list logo
