On Friday, March 15, 2002, at 03:07 , Tom Lane wrote:
> It's not clear to me why a restart (which would naturally clear shared
> memory) didn't fix the problem.
Er, um, (humble look), I just studied my syslog, and in fact the
postmaster _didn't_ restart. I tried to restart it using the Red Ha
Bob Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm rather surprised that restarting the postmaster didn't make the
>> error go away, but it's unlikely that anyone will care to investigate
>> --- unless you can reproduce the problem in 7.1.3 or later.
> So this isn't an error that would be caused by som
On Friday, March 15, 2002, at 09:53 , Tom Lane wrote:
> Bob Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> PostgreSQL 7.0.2
>
> Time to update ...
I know, I know... But I'm about two weeks from bringing a whole new
server on-line with the latest version of Postgres, so I don't want to
hassle with upgr
Bob Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PostgreSQL 7.0.2
Time to update ...
I'm rather surprised that restarting the postmaster didn't make the
error go away, but it's unlikely that anyone will care to investigate
--- unless you can reproduce the problem in 7.1.3 or later.
I received the following error from a VACUUM ANALYZE:
NOTICE: FlushRelationBuffers(place, 454): block 231 is referenced
(private 0, global 4)
FATAL 1: VACUUM (vc_repair_frag): FlushRelationBuffers returned -2
and psql lost the connection right after that. This was repeatable,
after the fir
