Re: [ADMIN] Why are some WAL files in pg_xlog symlinks to old files?

2010-09-28 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Nigel wrote: > Hello, > > We're running PG 8.3 in a warm standby configuration.  About 3 weeks ago we > had to fail over from the primary to the standby.  That worked fine, but > we're having problems getting standby mode set up again.  On the new > standby, every

[ADMIN] Why are some WAL files in pg_xlog symlinks to old files?

2010-09-28 Thread Nigel
Hello, We're running PG 8.3 in a warm standby configuration. About 3 weeks ago we had to fail over from the primary to the standby. That worked fine, but we're having problems getting standby mode set up again. On the new standby, everything works fine for a little while: WALs were rsynced over

Re: [ADMIN] Could not read block error question

2010-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
Lukasz Brodziak writes: > One question about blocks in PG. I got an error "Could not read block > of relation" it appeared to be in pg_trigger but the thing > is that the block number was 110 and the file has only 67 pages. So > the question is how is it possible? Well, that's why it failed

Re: [ADMIN] Could not read block error question

2010-09-28 Thread Lukasz Brodziak
I would provide all the needed information if I only had them. The thing is it happened on one of our client's machine and all he did was reporting the problem without providing us the data folder. So I asked the question just to know whether it is possible to read from a higher block number than t

Re: [ADMIN] Could not read block error question

2010-09-28 Thread Kevin Grittner
Lukasz Brodziak wrote: > I got an error "Could not read block of relation" it > appeared to be in pg_trigger If you'd pasted in the message as it appeared, we wouldn't need to guess whether you're right. > the block number was 110 and the file has only 67 pages. So the > question is how

Re: [ADMIN] pg_dump and table exclusion: multiple patterns

2010-09-28 Thread Vibhor Kumar
On Sep 28, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Marc Mamin wrote: > But if I prefix my pattern with the schema name, then I finally get the > expected result: > >pg_dump -i -v -nXXX -T 'XXX.*2008*' -T ' XXX.*2009*' -T ' XXX.*201001*' -T > XXX.'*201002*' . > > > seems that the use of the -n flag require

Re: [ADMIN] pg_dump and table exclusion: multiple patterns

2010-09-28 Thread Vibhor Kumar
On Sep 28, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Marc Mamin wrote: > But if I prefix my pattern with the schema name, then I finally get the > expected result: > >pg_dump -i -v -nXXX -T 'XXX.*2008*' -T ' XXX.*2009*' -T ' XXX.*201001*' -T > XXX.'*201002*' . > > > seems that the use of the -n flag require

Re: [ADMIN] pg_dump and table exclusion: multiple patterns

2010-09-28 Thread Marc Mamin
here is a strange behaviour: I did first simplify my syntax with multiples -T flags: pg_dump -i -v -nXXX -T '*2008*' -T '*2009*' -T '*201001*' -T '*201002*' . still not working. But if I prefix my pattern with the schema name, then I finally get the expected result: pg_dump -i -

[ADMIN] pg_dump and table exclusion: multiple patterns

2010-09-28 Thread Marc Mamin
hello, I'm trying to export a schema with multiple table exclusions: pg_dump -i -v -nXXX -T '*20((08[0-9]+)|(09[0-9]+)|(100[1-8][0-9]+)|(1009[0-1][0-9]+))' unfortunately, the filter does not work as expected.(no table at all are excluded) when I try the same patte

[ADMIN] Could not read block error question

2010-09-28 Thread Lukasz Brodziak
Hello One question about blocks in PG. I got an error "Could not read block of relation" it appeared to be in pg_trigger but the thing is that the block number was 110 and the file has only 67 pages. So the question is how is it possible? -- Łukasz Brodziak -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing