On 31.05.2012 08:06, Erik Rijkers wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 03:30, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Erik Rijkerse...@xs4all.nl wrote:
directory
2012-05-30 23:40:57.909 CEST 3909 CONTEXT: writing block 5152 of relation
base/21268/26569
xlog redo multi-insert
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
In my test, I run the bash code (the bits that I posted earlier) in a while
loop so that the table
is CREATEd, COPYied into, and DROPped every few seconds -- perhaps that
wasn't clear. That loop
is necessary; a few
On 31 May 2012 12:14, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
In my test, I run the bash code (the bits that I posted earlier) in a while
loop so that the table
is CREATEd, COPYied into, and DROPped every few seconds --
On Thu, May 31, 2012 13:14, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
In my test, I run the bash code (the bits that I posted earlier) in a while
loop so that the
table
is CREATEd, COPYied into, and DROPped every few seconds -- perhaps that
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 13:14, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
In my test, I run the bash code (the bits that I posted earlier) in a while
loop so that the
table
is
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The one thing that still seems a little odd to me is that this caused
a pin count to get orphaned. It seems reasonable that ignoring the
AccessExclusiveLock could result in not-found errors trying to open a
missing relation, and even fsync requests on
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The one thing that still seems a little odd to me is that this caused
a pin count to get orphaned. It seems reasonable that ignoring the
AccessExclusiveLock could result in not-found
On 26.05.2012 12:21, Erik Rijkers wrote:
But when that if-block is added the client crashes after a while (sometimes
almost immediately; it
never survives longer then 20 minutes):
2012-05-26 10:44:22.617 CEST 10274 ERROR: could not fsync file
base/21268/32807: No such file
or directory
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
There's something wrong with the way AccessExclusiveLocks work on a standby.
I did begin; truncate foo; -- leave the xact open in the master, and
waited until the xlog records are shipped to the
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The process holding the AccessExclusiveLock is the startup process. It's
holding the lock on behalf of the transaction in the master. But something's
wrong, and the AccessExclusiveLock doesn't stop a regular backend from
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The process holding the AccessExclusiveLock is the startup process. It's
holding the lock on behalf of the transaction in the master. But
On Wed, May 30, 2012 22:25, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The process holding the AccessExclusiveLock is the startup process. It's
holding the lock on behalf
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
(I double-checked that I got your latest commit in)
I'm afraid it's not yet resolved; the sync-slave still crashes almost
immediately:
master logfile says:
2012-05-30 23:30:07.846 CEST 3918 LOG: standby wal_receiver_01 is
On Thu, May 31, 2012 03:30, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
directory
2012-05-30 23:40:57.909 CEST 3909 CONTEXT: writing block 5152 of relation
base/21268/26569
xlog redo multi-insert (init): rel 1663/21268/26581; blk 3852; 35
pg 9.2 git master
AMD 8120 (8-core) / 6 GB memory / Centos 6.2
I have experimented a bit with dropping a table from master, then querying that
table from a
sync-rep slave. It is a little worrying that this, the first test I tried,
crashes the slave.
There are two instance on one machine,
15 matches
Mail list logo
